header-logo header-logo

25 January 2013 / Keith Patten
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Step back in time

Removing liability for health & safety regulation breaches would take us back to the 19th century, says Keith Patten

Imagine the following facts: Fireman Sam is on duty at a fire station. An emergency call is received that a woman is trapped under a heavy vehicle 300m from the fire station. The officer in charge directs Sam, and some of his colleagues, to attend the scene, along with a large and heavy jack standing on four wheels. The only vehicle available to transport the jack is an ordinary lorry with a plain floor and sides. There is nothing to which the jack can be secured, so Sam and his colleagues cling on to it to try to stop it from moving around in the back of the lorry. Shortly after leaving the fire station the driver is forced to apply the brakes sharply. Sam and his colleagues are unable to stop the jack from moving. As it does so, it strikes Sam’s ankle causing him a serious, career-threatening injury.

Current law

The

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll