Rank: Forum user 
|
Good evening,
it has been a while since the Unit A text books where to hand, but if memory serves. No action can be brought under S2-9 of HSW Act 1974 (due to the generality).
Can anyone name 3 or 4 statutory instruments that do allow for civil action. I just looked at PUWER and realise I may have gone about the search the wrong way, in that maybe civil liability is excluded from when expressed by the statute(?). As opposed to seeing a sentence to the effect of 'Civil Liability is not prohibited under this S.I'
If anyone can help I'd be grateful to some of the more knowledgeable amongst us.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If I read this right, the following are some answers to the question,
RRFSO 2005
Fire Scotland Act 2005
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulation 1999.
However – I am not sure the effect that the removal of Strict Liability has on these regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I believe that the enterprise and regulatory reform act 2013 section 69 effectively stopped civil claims being founded on breach of statutory duty where that duty was based in health and safety law. The only explicit exemption where claims may still arise is under maternity provisions. Most claimants must now prove negligence, which is much harder to do than proving statutory breach... Othes may have more info to hand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for the help so far guys - more responses welcome from those in the know in the mean time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steve e a has the answer -- and I think that the clause even effects possible follow on civil actions where the business,employer, employee has already been successfully prosecuted for the event under criminal law by the HSE as previously the fact that the HSE won made it almost a certainty that a follow up civil claim without the need to provide much proof of negligence would also win so things have really really changed
as an aside and for info only as far as I am aware an individual private person can still bring an independent action under environment law without the enforcers etc. being involved at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My understanding is that now it is not possible to bring about a specific civil action based on a breach of statutory duty in relation to H&S regulations. Example of this was the case of Stark vs Post Office, which established that the duty to maintain a piece of work equipment (in this case a bike) under reg 9 of PUWER was an absolute duty and as a result when the bike brakes came on suddenly without warning and the claimant was injured as a result the fact that the bike had been subject to routine servicing was not a defence.
Under the changed law you can only bring a claim only under the common law of negligence. When considering the evidence of negligence the judge would have to look at what it was reasonable to expect an employer to do to comply with their duty of care rather than any sort of absolute duty.
Nevertheless it would be perverse to say, that if an employer was successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with H&S regulations that there was no evidence of a breach of the general duty of care under common law.
So yes the law has changed and it is now not possible to sue for statutory breach only but any evidence from an actual prosecution could be used in court as evidence of negligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My understanding is that there never was a requirement that a clam could be made purely on a breach of statutory duty. A civil claim can only be made based on a civil wrong (dilict). In health and safety fields, this would normally be 'negligence' and for the pursuer to be successful they require to prove that: a duty of care was owed, there was a breach of that duty and the injury was a result of the breach of duty of care. So.... previously if the pursuer could prove that a the defender breached a statutory duty or that there was an absolute duty under statutory law then this could be used to prove the 'breach of duty of care' part of negligence - however, the pursuer still had to prove that a duty of care was owed and the injury was a result of the breach of the duty. This was previously known as strict liability.
The law has now changed and the pursuer needs to prove to the court that there was a 'breach of duty of care' and that strict liability (statutory law) cannot be used in the civil case.
The OP asked about legislation that had built within it 'exclusions of civil liability' in which I think that the post at #2 was spot on in answering the question.
To add another one to complete the 4th,
Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Claim - will we ever get that edit button?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.