Absolute Duty - Summers (John) & Sons v. Frost (1955)

The claimant’s hand came into contact with moving grinding wheel in breach of the Factories Act 1961, Section 14(1). The defendant argued that if a grinding wheel was securely fenced the machine would be unusable. The court rejected this proposition and refused to read the words so far as is reasonably practicable into the statute.

This case created the bizarre situation that all grinding wheels were illegal unless all the wheel was contained within a guard. To overcome this the government introduced the Abrasive Wheels Regulations 1970 (since revoked) which permitted a lower standard of guarding than that required by the Factories Act.

Marshall v. Gotham (1954) - Practicable

The case concerned the collapse of a mine roof which had been subjected to earlier tests but which collapsed due to a rare geological fault. The judges decided that the employers were not liable because they had taken some precautions but the trouble and expense involved in taking more precautions would have been prohibitive and even then would not have guaranteed safety. The judge ruled in this case that if a precaution is practicable it must be taken unless in the whole circumstances it would be unreasonable. The term is now generally interpreted to mean that whatever is technically possible in the light of current knowledge must be carried out. The cost, time and trouble are NOT to be taken into account in arriving at a decision.

A more recent case and arguably a better example of an absolute duty is Stark v Post Office [2000] EWCA Civ 64. In this case the Claimant was injured by a defective bicycle supplied by the Post Office. Even though it was agreed that routine maintenance would not have identified the defect, the duty to ensure that work equipment is fit for purpose and properly maintained pursuant to PUWER was deemed to be an absolute duty. This was mainly due to the fact there was no 'practicable' or 'reasonably practicable' caveat written into the regulation.