Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Jason, No problems. In FAIRCHILD v GLENHAVEN [2001] EWCA Civ 1881 it was reported that: "In Babcock, Fairchild and Dyson the court held that no liability attaches to an occupier of premises whether at common law prior to 1957 or under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 from the mere fact that the workmen in these cases were exposed to asbestos dust in premises of which they were the occupiers. The language of section 2(2) of the 1957 Act, which referred to “care … to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there” relates to the static condition of the premises. Any liability in respect of a danger to which the workmen may be exposed as a consequence of activities performed on the premises falls to be determined by the common law (or by a different statute, such as section 63(1) of the Factories Act 1961). In these three cases, where the occupiers engaged competent independent contractors to carry out work on their premises, and where the occupiers did not know of the danger to which the workmen were exposed (even though they ought to have known it, at any rate from 1958 onwards), they were not liable for negligence at common law simply in their capacity as occupiers (see paras 149-155 of http://www.bailii.org/cg...+Co+Ltd+1966+&method=all for the judgement)." In the example we are dealing with it is not the state of the premises that gave rise to the injury but the activities that were going on. Who was carrying out the connection? The boat owner; however, the question arises was the boat owner at work? If he was not, Health and Safety law does not apply to him. However, in connecting to the electricity supply; other acts and regulations may apply, but not H&S law! As a consequence, the law that applies is the laws of contract and negligence. I will stick to negligence, as I don't have a copy of the contract documents. So, who owes duties to who? The marina (harbour/Quay) operator owes a duty of care to the boat owner and other parties; conversely, the boat owner owes a duty of care to the operator and other users of the marina. Now who's acts and omissions fell below the standards of the reasonable man in similar circumstances? The boat owner, in that he failed to ensure that his cable was not a trip hazard! Say for example; that the cable lay across the quay, but was not connected to the electricity supply; Would the trip hazard exist? Yes! However, if the cable was not there, did the electricity supply give rise to the trip hazard? No! Therefore, it was the cable and not the electricity supply power outlet that gave rise to the person tripping. So the next question whose cable was it? Was it the boat owners or the marina owners? I made the assumption that it was the boat owner who made the connection from the information provided. That is why I say that the boat owner is liable and not the marina owner. Regards Adrian Watson.

Posted By peter gotch In his opinion in the case of Lynne Patricia Graham v East of Scotland Water Authority [www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/ems2801.html], Lord Emslie commented “[6] In developing her submission that the action was irrelevant and should be dismissed, counsel for the defenders advanced two principal arguments. In the first place she maintained, by reference to a number of well-known authorities, that occupiers of land owed no duty to erect fences for the protection of visitors against permanent and obvious features of the environment. This rule applied to natural features such as cliffs, rivers and lochs, but it also applied to man-made or artificial features like railway embankments, ornamental ponds and canals. The rationale here was that individuals could be expected to look after their own safety in relation to permanent and familiar features of the landscape, and it was only where dangers were unusual, unfamiliar or concealed that different considerations applied. [7] In Hastie v Magistrates of Edinburgh 1907 S.C. 1102, the Inner House affirmed this rule, and dismissed as irrelevant the pursuer's claim for damages in respect of the drowning of his child in an artificial pond in a city park. Stevenson v Glasgow Corporation 1908 S.C. 1034 was a similar case where the defenders were held to be under no duty to fence the River Kelvin into which the pursuer's young child had fallen and been drowned. Thereafter, the same approach was strongly endorsed by the House of Lords in Taylor v Glasgow Corporation 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 1, and by the Inner House in Dumbreck v Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd 1928 S.C. 547. More recently, in Duff v East Dunbartonshire Council and Others 1999 G.W.D. 22-1077, Lady Cosgrove again applied the established general rule, holding that a pursuer who fell down a steep embankment on to a rocky river-bank adjacent to a car park had no relevant claim. That decision was later followed by the Sheriff Principal of Grampian Highland and Islands in Strachan v Highland Council 1999 G.W.D. 38-1863, where the pursuer fell over a cliff after passing through a gap in a fence. So, if no responsibility on occupier in respect of a permanent hazard, what duty in respect of hazard introduced by facility user? A NEBOSH Diploma Part 2 question??! p

Posted By David Bannister Whatever happened to "volenti non fit injuria"? Quaysides are dangerous. They often have obstructions such as ropes and cables. There is water/mud/silt. I guess I'm just old-fashioned enough to believe that some element of personal responsibility still exists

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH So G Burgess, have you got your answer yet? Regards