Posted By Alan Hoskins Hi Kevin, For the low-down on this, get a copy of Munkman on Employer's Liability from the library. Alan

Posted By Kevin_20056 Hello Can anyone advise me where to get a copy of munkman please thanks kevin

Posted By Alan Hoskins Kevin, There are two whole chapters about these two subjects in Munkman. Martyn is pretty much on the mark, but Negligence is proven on the balance of probabilities, whereas for a Breach of Statutory Duty, it is not usually necessary to prove 'fault'. HaSaWA does not allow a civil claim for BoSD, but Regulations made under the Act do. Hope that is helpful. Alan

Posted By Alan Hoskins Wasn't the Management Regs exclusion repealed in the 2003 amendment, Ted?

Posted By Edward Shyer Alan Amended again in 2006, Citation and commencement 1. These Regulations may be cited as the Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2006 and shall come into force on 6th April 2006. Amendment to Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 2. For regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999[5] there shall be substituted the following regulation — " Restriction of civil liability for breach of statutory duty 22. —(1) Breach of a duty imposed on an employer by these Regulations shall not confer a right of action in any civil proceedings insofar as that duty applies for the protection of a third party. (2) Breach of a duty imposed on an employee by regulation 14 shall not confer a right of action in any civil proceedings insofar as that duty applies for the protection of a third party. (3) In this regulation, "third party", in relation to the undertaking, means any person who may be affected by that undertaking other than the employer whose undertaking it is and persons in his employment.". Regards Ted

Posted By Alan Hewett Kevin, Be aware that there is also the ability to bring a 'double-barreled' action.

Posted By Adrian Watson Raymond, With great respect Kevin's question was in respect of "Differences between claims for negligence and claims for breach of statutory duties" it is not illogical. Kevin The differences between claims for negligence and claims for breach of statutory duty is as follows. For a claim of negligence the claimant has to prove on the balance of probabilities that: The person owed them a duty of care; That the person breached that duty of care; and that injury and loss resulted from that breach of duty of care. The standard of care is that expected of a reasonable person in those circumstances. Where the person has special knowledge or experience then the standard of care is of a similar group of persons in a similar position. For negligence the issues of proximity, reasonableness and foreseeability are taken into account when determining liability. For breach of duty of care, the tests are that: The person must be a member of a class that the regulation aims to protect; and The person must suffer an injury that the regulation aims to protect against. The standard of care is that prescribed by the regulations. For example the duty imposed by the COSHH regulations is absolute. There does not have to be negligence. Reasonability and foreseeability are non issues. Regards Adrian.

Posted By Adrian Watson Reasonableness - what is reasonable in the circumstances; Reasonable forethought - Thinking about and looking for things that may occur; not the impossible and improbable but the probable and likely. Regards Adrian

Posted By Rakesh Maharaj Kevin, By planning, and being able to evidence the planning process in its many guises e.g. project planning, scenario planning, PPMPs, action planning and so on. Presumably your next question is: What are the ramifications of a foreseeable issue arising despite there being a plan in place? My answer then, might be more orientated towards mitigation! Regards R