Defective work equipment due to a third party (Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969)
Oakridge Joinery Ltd buys a set of power saws from a reputable manufacturer and checks them on delivery, as a reasonable employer would. One saw has a hidden manufacturing defect which no reasonable inspection would have revealed. While using the saw in the course of his employment at Oakridge's workshop in England, Darius, an employee, is injured when the blade guard fails because of the defect. Oakridge argues that it was not at fault and that Darius should sue the manufacturer.
Which of the following best describes Oakridge's liability to Darius?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: Oakridge is liable, because Darius's injury is deemed attributable to its negligence, although it may seek contribution or an indemnity from the manufacturer.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Where an employee is injured by defective work equipment and the defect is due to a third party's fault, the injury is deemed attributable to the employer's negligence (EL(DE)A 1969 s.1).
Defective work equipment due to a third party (Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969)
An employer owes its employees a personal, non-delegable duty at common law to take reasonable care for their safety, which includes providing adequate plant and equipment. Section 1(1) of the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 supplements that common law duty. Where an employee suffers personal injury in the course of employment because of a defect in equipment provided by the employer for its business, and the defect is attributable wholly or partly to the fault of a third party (whether identified or not), the injury is deemed to be also attributable to the employer's negligence. This applies whether or not the employer would be liable apart from the section. The defect in the saw resulted from the manufacturer's fault, so Oakridge is deemed negligent and is liable to Darius, even though it acted reasonably. The section preserves the employer's remedies by way of contribution or in contract against the manufacturer or supplier, and any contributory negligence by Darius. Under s.1(2) any agreement purporting to exclude or limit this liability is void.
Why A is wrong: Reasonable care in buying and inspecting is no answer, because s.1(1) deems the injury attributable to the employer's negligence.
Why C is wrong: The deeming provision applies whether or not the third party is identified or solvent.
Why D is wrong: The 1969 Act reversed the position that buying from a reputable supplier discharged the employer's duty as to defective equipment.
Why E is wrong: Section 1(2) makes void any agreement purporting to exclude or limit the employer's liability under s.1(1).
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Secondary victims after Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
Which of the following best describes whether Mei can recover damages as a secondary victim?
Police duty of care for positive acts during an arrest (Robinson v CC West Yorkshire)
Which of the following best describes whether the officers owed Edna a duty of care?
The omissions principle: when a duty to prevent harm arises
In which of the following situations is a duty of care to prevent the harm most likely to arise?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.