header-logo header-logo

04 November 2010 / David Branson
Issue: 7440 / Categories: Features , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

A different view?

David Branson explores the differences between criminal & civil liability for health & safety

In health and safety law there is both civil and criminal liability, and in both cases a general liability and a specific one. In criminal law the general liability exists under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974), which imposes duties on the employer to ensure the health and safety of employees. The specific liability lies under the various subordinate regulations, such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) (the regulations) which looks mainly at machinery guarding issues. In civil law the general liability lies under the common law tort of negligence, as originally set out in the case of Wilson & Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57, [1937] 3 All ER 628, while the specific liability lies under an action for breach of statutory duty, using the same subordinate legislation as exists for criminal law.

The nature of liability can be seen as either fault-based or strict. Fault–based liability

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll