Rank: Forum user 
|
I need to carry out a short presentation to our managers on the proposed changes to the above topic. Can anyone point me to any sources with any good information on this topic. This months SHP had a good article on the topic , but just need some information.
Many Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Confined,
The most notable example of a claim under the strict liability provision was that of Stark -v- Post Office, Mr Stark (a postman) was injured when the front brake on his company bicycle failed. It was found that there was no failure by the Post Office to maintain the bicycle and that the defect that caused the accident could not reasonably have been detected. Nevertheless, the Post Office was found liable because the defect was present and this caused the work equipment no longer to be in efficient working order.
However, it is not that Stark is now bad law – rather it can no longer be presumed as good law.
The change in the law means that claimants can no longer be assured of certain success and cases need to be assessed on the basis of the specific provisions of the Regulations under which they are pleaded, in conjunction with the usual common law tests. In simple terms, there is no powerful change and insurers will deal with claims on their own, individual merits. But in order to successfully defend a claim, it remains essential that employers are able to produce documentary evidence of training, housekeeping, safe systems of work, maintenance, etc.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Phil Grace's thoughtful comments serve as a reminder of the significance of asking (not only) carefully-worded questions. Phil's remarks flesh out the emphasis on knowledge available in documents by Kevin McLoughlin in the article in SHP Sept 2013
While the context of litigation is never to be taken lightly, the account of the development of the current system of civil and criminal Procedural Rules used in Courts in England and Wales by their author, Lord (Harry) Woolf indicate the balances they're designed to respect. It's available in 'The Pursuit of Justice', Woolf, Lord. Oxford University Press. 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I apologise for #4 which I intended to write in reply to another question
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Do nothing until you have attended the Retail and Distribution Group's webinar on this very topic this coming Wednesday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
For what it's worth, I think most (in fact probably all) of the claims we've dealt with in recent years either were, or could be rephrased to be, based on allegations of negligence. We ALREADY have to do all the work outlined on page 6 of that Zurich document.
I also can't think of a single one which rests on a strict liability issue - I'm sure if this wasn't the case I might be thinking differently.
Others' experience will vary, of course, but I'm not sure we're going to notice a difference.
Now I've said that, I'll be back here in six months eating my words!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Gramsay,
You are spot on... in my opinion the majority of civil claims do NOT rely on strict liability provisions. A fair few rest upon an allegation of "breach of statutory duty".
But as you will recall what happened was that Lofstedt said Strict Liability (a rarely used provision) should be withdrawn but Govt took the easy option. Instead of identifying just those pieces of legislation that give a right of strict liability they have "axed" any right to use legislation in a civil claim.
Quick and dirty solution. But given that many employers would struggle to provide evidence that they had fulfilled their common law duty of care it is unlikely that there will be much noticeable difference.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.