The law ensures that people adhere to the set rules and regulations and statutes paper assignment

Executive summary The law ensures that people adhere to the set rules and regulations and statutes that are in place are adhered to. The law regarding regulations regarding the concerns of the welfare are enshrine in various documents including the constitution, acts of parliament and case laws.
Most of the laws regarding safety and health in the workplace are found in the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. The employers are required by the law to take reasonable steps in ensuring the welfare, and thehealth as well as safety of their employees and non-employees within the work areas.
In many situations the employers who have failed to observe such provisions of the law have found themselves facing criminal prosecution in the Courts. The failure to adhere to the legislative and common law provisions in regard to the welfare, health and safety of the employees have also led to employees and other persons seeking legal redress over the breach of the law and regulations governing the issues of concern.
The Health and Safety at Work Act has burdened the employers with the responsibility of ensuring working practices that do not put the health and safety of the employees at risk. This means that an employer may find himself answerable for his actions of omissions even on circumstances that may not be covered under the written law.
It also means that the steps taken to ensure health and safety of employees and people are reasonable to any other reasonable person.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It also means that the steps taken to ensure health and safety of employees and people are reasonable to any other reasonable person.
The employers’ responsibility includes his duty to provide safe plant and machinery as well as safe working premises, systems and appropriately qualified and skilled staff.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The employers’ responsibility includes his duty to provide safe plant and machinery as well as safe working premises, systems and appropriately qualified and skilled staff.
For the steps decided by an employer to implement in ensuring health and safety of the employees and non-employees, consultations with employees or their representatives should be considered.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
For the steps decided by an employer to implement in ensuring health and safety of the employees and non-employees, consultations with employees or their representatives should be considered.
The responsibility of an employer does not involve his employees only but may also include other persons such as when different workers from different firms are working on the same job,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The responsibility of an employer does not involve his employees only but may also include other persons such as when different workers from different firms are working on the same job,
the principle contractor takes over the responsibility over all the workers on work site in regard to their welfare, health and safety.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the principle contractor takes over the responsibility over all the workers on work site in regard to their welfare, health and safety.
The principle contractor also bears the responsibilities of the commissions and/or omissions of such workers as long as he continues to be the principle contractor.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The principle contractor also bears the responsibilities of the commissions and/or omissions of such workers as long as he continues to be the principle contractor.
Such responsibilities also extend to visitors and customers visiting the work place.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Such responsibilities also extend to visitors and customers visiting the work place.
Employers should ensure that the code of conduct,
http://us.practicallaw.com/2-524-8288?q=&qp=&qo=&qe= 100%
http://www.un.org/Depts/ptd/sites/www.un.org.Depts.ptd/files/files/attachment/page/2014/February 2014/conduct_english.pdf 60%
http://www.citigroup.com/citi/investor/data/codeconduct_en.pdf 80%
http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/capacity-building/activities-and-programmes/~/media/AECDD5F305C6401CAF163C54D50434E3.ashx 80%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Employers should ensure that the code of conduct,
rules on safety procedures and training and supervision are prepared and preferably in a written form which should be shared with the employees to keep them informed of the existing rules and procedures at work place.
http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/o/q/h02_1.pdf 60%
http://rqia.org.uk/cms_resources/safeguarding-vulnerable-adults-a-shared-responsibility-colour-nl.pdf 60%
http://www.behavioral-safety.com/articles/Improving_safety_culture_a_practical_guide.pdf 60%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
rules on safety procedures and training and supervision are prepared and preferably in a written form which should be shared with the employees to keep them informed of the existing rules and procedures at work place.
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 has established the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_at_Work_etc._Act_1974 94%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Commission 88%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Executive 82%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hsc13.pdf 82%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm 76%
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/pdfs/ukpga_19740037_en.pdf 76%
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37 82%
http://www.agius.com/hew/resource/hswlaw.htm 88%
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/resources/health_and_safety/health_and_safety_legal_summaries/health_and_safety_at_work_act_1974.cfm 71%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 has established the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.
The commission bears the responsibility to advise and authorise research and suggestions that may have an effect on the provisions of Health and Safety at Work Act.
http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/n/9/B11_1.pdf 72%
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-rights/disability/disability-employment/work-making-reasonable-adjustments 61%
https://docs.employment.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/towards_more_productive_and_equitable_workplaces_an_evaluation_of_the_fair_work_legislation.docx 61%
http://www.solidaritylegalservices.co.za/legal-questions/ 61%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The commission bears the responsibility to advise and authorise research and suggestions that may have an effect on the provisions of Health and Safety at Work Act.
The Health and Safety Executive is mandated to provide information and advice to the government and also to carry out investigations on breaches (The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974).
http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/n/9/B11_1.pdf 68%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse41.pdf 68%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse49.pdf 77%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 64%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_at_Work_etc._Act_1974 77%
The Health and Safety Executive is mandated to provide information and advice to the government and also to carry out investigations on breaches (The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974).
Introduction Organisations and corporations are expected to observe Health and Safety laws that are in place for the benefit of themselves in protecting themselves from criminal and civil suits that could lead to economic losses and also to protect their employees and other people from injuries and/or possible harm that can easily be foreseen.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Introduction Organisations and corporations are expected to observe Health and Safety laws that are in place for the benefit of themselves in protecting themselves from criminal and civil suits that could lead to economic losses and also to protect their employees and other people from injuries and/or possible harm that can easily be foreseen.
Such corporations and organisations are expected to assess risks to employees, partners, customers and any other people who could suffer from any risks associated with the corporation’s activities.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Such corporations and organisations are expected to assess risks to employees, partners, customers and any other people who could suffer from any risks associated with the corporation’s activities.
The organisations should effectively plan, organise, control, monitor and review the protective and preventive measures at work place.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The organisations should effectively plan, organise, control, monitor and review the protective and preventive measures at work place.
It is a requirement that any organisation should have a written health and safety policy as long as they employ five or more people.
http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/ACCA_Global/Technical/health/atom-guide-health-and-safety.doc 88%
http://www.healthyworkinglives.com/advice/Legislation-and-policy/Workplace-Health-and-Safety/health-safety-documents 81%
http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/environment/Writing a Health and Safety Policy Statement.pdf 81%
http://koodoocreative.co.uk/~evolutio/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/How-to-Create-a-Health-and-Safety-Policy.docx 88%
http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l21_management_of_health_and_safety_at_work.pdf 69%
http://www.tcea.org.uk/Documents/Health-and-Safety-Law.htm 63%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It is a requirement that any organisation should have a written health and safety policy as long as they employ five or more people.
Such organisations should also ensure access to reliable and competent healthy and safety advice.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsg65.pdf 69%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg275.pdf 69%
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/4264/sf-dev-staff.pdf 62%
https://www.internationalsos.com/~/media/corporate/files/documents/global-framework.pdf 85%
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2010/psi-2010-42-health-and-safety-policy.doc 69%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Such organisations should also ensure access to reliable and competent healthy and safety advice.
The organisations should also consult with the employees about the risks posed to the employees while at work and the prevailing preventive and protective measures available.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The organisations should also consult with the employees about the risks posed to the employees while at work and the prevailing preventive and protective measures available.
Case background and description Fred Jones, an employee of Roadbuild plc died on 16th October 2012 as a result of injuries suffered while at work.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Case background and description Fred Jones, an employee of Roadbuild plc died on 16th October 2012 as a result of injuries suffered while at work.
Roadbuild plc had contracted ABC Jetting Ltd to undertake high-pressure water jetting operation during construction of a flyover on a highway in Gatecastle.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Roadbuild plc had contracted ABC Jetting Ltd to undertake high-pressure water jetting operation during construction of a flyover on a highway in Gatecastle.
The high-pressure was used to cut through the end of concrete support sections.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/05a.cfm 63%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel 63%
http://www.concretepumpers.com/sites/www.concretepumpers.com/files/attachments/studyguide.pdf 63%
http://www.concreteconstruction.net/repair/demolition-the-easy-way.aspx 63%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The high-pressure was used to cut through the end of concrete support sections.
Mr Jones was working from a scaffold 10 meters from the ground when he identified some concrete overspill that needed to be removed to allow for placement of an intersecting section.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Mr Jones was working from a scaffold 10 meters from the ground when he identified some concrete overspill that needed to be removed to allow for placement of an intersecting section.
At that particular moment he realised that the employees of ABC Jetting Ltd had taken a break but had left working equipment in the area.
http://www.cruiselawnews.com/tags/royal-caribbean/ 47%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
At that particular moment he realised that the employees of ABC Jetting Ltd had taken a break but had left working equipment in the area.
He decided to take the jetting lance by himself with the intention of using it himself to remove the excess concrete.
http://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/the-nature-of-fred-jones-law-company-business-partnership-essay.php 92%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
He decided to take the jetting lance by himself with the intention of using it himself to remove the excess concrete.
As he picked up the lance, the compressor ‘kicked in’ and the pressure from the lance forced him backwards between the guard-rail and the toe-board of the scaffold.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As he picked up the lance, the compressor ‘kicked in’ and the pressure from the lance forced him backwards between the guard-rail and the toe-board of the scaffold.
Though he had experience with water cleaning operations while working on a city centre renovation project before, he however fell and suffered injuries.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Though he had experience with water cleaning operations while working on a city centre renovation project before, he however fell and suffered injuries.
A first-aider was quickly at the site and an ambulance called to take him to hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival at Gatecastle Royal Infirmary.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
A first-aider was quickly at the site and an ambulance called to take him to hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival at Gatecastle Royal Infirmary.
Criminal case analysis Under the circumstances of Mr Jones, there is a resultant work-related death which is legally referred to as manslaughter.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Criminal case analysis Under the circumstances of Mr Jones, there is a resultant work-related death which is legally referred to as manslaughter.
The scenario for manslaughter arises when a person dies as a result of another person’s commission or omission leading to death of another where no aforethought malicious intent to cause death cannot be established or does not exist.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The scenario for manslaughter arises when a person dies as a result of another person’s commission or omission leading to death of another where no aforethought malicious intent to cause death cannot be established or does not exist.
In the cases of work-related manslaughter, there are two perspectives; individual and corporate manslaughter. For any work related death, the Coroner,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In the cases of work-related manslaughter, there are two perspectives; individual and corporate manslaughter. For any work related death, the Coroner,
HSE, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the police have different roles in the case.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
HSE, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the police have different roles in the case.
Under such circumstances, the HSE investigates and where appropriate prosecutes breaches in relation to health and safety laws.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Under such circumstances, the HSE investigates and where appropriate prosecutes breaches in relation to health and safety laws.
However the HSE is limited in that it cannot investigate or even prosecute corporate or individual manslaughter or even other criminal offences outside beyond its health and safety concern.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
However the HSE is limited in that it cannot investigate or even prosecute corporate or individual manslaughter or even other criminal offences outside beyond its health and safety concern.
Breach of health and safety regulations Employers can find themselves criminally liable for breach of various regulations such as failure to ensure health and safety of employees and non-employees as provided in sections 2 and 3 of Safety and health at Work Act (1974).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Breach of health and safety regulations Employers can find themselves criminally liable for breach of various regulations such as failure to ensure health and safety of employees and non-employees as provided in sections 2 and 3 of Safety and health at Work Act (1974).
Employers can also be criminally liable for the offences under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) for failing to carry out sufficient and suitable risk assessment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Employers can also be criminally liable for the offences under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) for failing to carry out sufficient and suitable risk assessment.
In the case of Mr Jones,
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/criminal/articles/092310_barefoot-insole-impression.html 100%
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/confidentiality_serious_communicable_diseases.asp 100%
http://www.lifechristiancounseling.com/cebuckingham/Pro Assess and Consult/Case Study – Assessment of Mr. Jones.pdf 100%
https://secure.ce-credit.com/courses/101070/Bipolar-Disorder-A-Case-Study-of-the-movie-MR-JONES 100%
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/nwis/page/74313 100%
https://meds.queensu.ca/central/assets/modules/evidence-search-and-rescue/case_study_meet_mr_jones.html 100%
http://www.manuelsweb.com/ethicspaper.htm 100%
https://www.cnsforum.com/educationalresources/filmforum/mr_jones 100%
http://behavenet.com/mr-jones 100%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In the case of Mr Jones,
Roadbuild plc could be prosecuted for the breach of safety regulations which led to death of Mr Jones for not being careful enough with their work equipment that is faulty and dangerous.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Roadbuild plc could be prosecuted for the breach of safety regulations which led to death of Mr Jones for not being careful enough with their work equipment that is faulty and dangerous.
Proper working equipment which are in good condition contributes greatly to the safety of the users and also non-users of the equipment,
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M54-44/Workzone.pdf 71%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Proper working equipment which are in good condition contributes greatly to the safety of the users and also non-users of the equipment,
whether employees or non-employees. A lance that was not in its safe working conditions as manufactured expressly means that the lance is not safe for use.
https://www.casd.org/SA/docDownload/7568 56%
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/35793/1/Paul_Harpur_Thesis.pdf 69%
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/corporate/news.html 63%
http://investor.relypsa.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1193125-14-104575&cik= 69%
https://law.wustl.edu/laborlawgroup/documents/PreliminaryDraftNo7.pdf 69%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
whether employees or non-employees. A lance that was not in its safe working conditions as manufactured expressly means that the lance is not safe for use.
As evidence was given by Andrew Gunn, the technical director of Fastjet Ltd, the equipment manufacturer,
http://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/the-nature-of-fred-jones-law-company-business-partnership-essay.php 100%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As evidence was given by Andrew Gunn, the technical director of Fastjet Ltd, the equipment manufacturer,
the pressure from the jet is so high that it can severe limbs or cut a person into half if directed to them.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the pressure from the jet is so high that it can severe limbs or cut a person into half if directed to them.
Evidence was also given that the jet’s force is enough to throw the operator off balance,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Evidence was also given that the jet’s force is enough to throw the operator off balance,
thus it is recommended that two people should operate it when working at a height.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
thus it is recommended that two people should operate it when working at a height.
It is the role of the principle contractor to carry out sufficient inspection of work equipment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It is the role of the principle contractor to carry out sufficient inspection of work equipment.
The Provision And Use Of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 provides for minimum standards for the use of machines and equipment which are suitable, well maintained and sufficiently inspected.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The Provision And Use Of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 provides for minimum standards for the use of machines and equipment which are suitable, well maintained and sufficiently inspected.
The regulation also includes mobile work equipment. The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 which deal with the manual handling of equipment,
http://www2.gcu.ac.uk/healthandsafety/Legal Requirements – Health and Safety Forum.pdf 88%
http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l23_manual_handling.pdf 75%
https://www.atl.org.uk/health-and-safety/legal-framework/health-safety-legislation.asp 75%
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-articles/health-and-safety-at-work.html 69%
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Retail/Gen_Apps_Manual_Handling.pdf 69%
http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/oh/GN-MHO.pdf 67%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_safety_regulations_in_the_United_Kingdom 63%
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/personalinjury/synopsis/471:483/Types-of-claim/Employer’s-liability 63%
http://www.mickgeorge.com/docs/files/Health and Safety Policy 2014.pdf 75%
http://www.unison.org.uk/catalogue/13101 63%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The regulation also includes mobile work equipment. The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 which deal with the manual handling of equipment,
stocks and material was breached also. The manual handling regulations provides that where reasonably practicable,
http://www.stagesafe.co.uk/user_files/health-and-safety-guide.pdf 73%
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-articles/health-and-safety-at-work.html 64%
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=339221109489058&story_fbid=352323948178774 64%
http://www.mindinmidherts.org.uk/Health and Safety Policy V2.doc 64%
http://www.madec.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Workplace-Safety-Training.pdf 64%
http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/9425/large_bulky_awkwardVs3.pdf 73%
http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/10300/safe_handling_chemicals_automotive_industry_APR13.pdf 73%
http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/Cases Chapter 25/O’Neill v DSG Retail Ltd.doc 64%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
stocks and material was breached also. The manual handling regulations provides that where reasonably practicable,
the employer should avoid the need for his or her employees to undertake manual handling involving risk of injury (MHO 1992).
http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/oh/GN-MHO.pdf 67%
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/wellbeing/safety/guidance/manualhandling/guidancenotes/ 73%
https://www.internationalworkplace.com/health-and-safety/info-centre/guides/44878/manual-handling 60%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the employer should avoid the need for his or her employees to undertake manual handling involving risk of injury (MHO 1992).
Roadbuild plc ought to have seriously and satisfactorily looked into The Provision And Use Of Work Equipment Regulations prior to allowing or authorising the use of such equipment at the work place.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Roadbuild plc ought to have seriously and satisfactorily looked into The Provision And Use Of Work Equipment Regulations prior to allowing or authorising the use of such equipment at the work place.
It is evident that Roadbuild plc overlooked this important regulation by relying on the recommendations of the Council about the reliance on ABC Ltd.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It is evident that Roadbuild plc overlooked this important regulation by relying on the recommendations of the Council about the reliance on ABC Ltd.
It was the duty of Roadbuild plc to carry out the inspection of the ABC Ltd and the equipment used them being sub-contractors.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It was the duty of Roadbuild plc to carry out the inspection of the ABC Ltd and the equipment used them being sub-contractors.
The time the contract was awarded to Roadbuild plc,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The time the contract was awarded to Roadbuild plc,
the Safey and Health Regulations shifted from the Council to the main contractor as far as the contracted task was in progress.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the Safey and Health Regulations shifted from the Council to the main contractor as far as the contracted task was in progress.
As evidence was given by Steven Moore, an employee of ABC Jetting Ltd, the trigger on the lance was no in its proper working condition,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As evidence was given by Steven Moore, an employee of ABC Jetting Ltd, the trigger on the lance was no in its proper working condition,
a matter that had previously been reported to his foreman at ABC Jetting Ltd, though no repairs had been done on it.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
a matter that had previously been reported to his foreman at ABC Jetting Ltd, though no repairs had been done on it.
The evidence meant that unless a user knew of the problem with the lance to be cautious enough to avoid any injuries,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The evidence meant that unless a user knew of the problem with the lance to be cautious enough to avoid any injuries,
then one was highly prone to injuries as it happened toMr Jones.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
then one was highly prone to injuries as it happened toMr Jones.
The evidence is strengthened by the evidence from the manufacturer of the lance who stated that the lance is fitted with a quick release,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The evidence is strengthened by the evidence from the manufacturer of the lance who stated that the lance is fitted with a quick release,
spring-loaded trigger with a safety interlock button that mechanically locks the trigger in the off positions to stop it being actuated.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
spring-loaded trigger with a safety interlock button that mechanically locks the trigger in the off positions to stop it being actuated.
This meant that such functions would not be useful to the user of the lance if the equipment is faulty.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
This meant that such functions would not be useful to the user of the lance if the equipment is faulty.
As stated in R v Tangerine Confectionary (R v Tangerine 2011), the foreseeability of risk is of relevance to the question on whether there is safety.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As stated in R v Tangerine Confectionary (R v Tangerine 2011), the foreseeability of risk is of relevance to the question on whether there is safety.
This may be used in the case of Mr Jones in identifying the foreseeability of the risk that led to injuries and death at the workplace.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
This may be used in the case of Mr Jones in identifying the foreseeability of the risk that led to injuries and death at the workplace.
The foreseeability can be established in the fact that the lance was known to be not in its proper working condition,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The foreseeability can be established in the fact that the lance was known to be not in its proper working condition,
an overlook that ought to have been seen or noticed by the contractor upon sufficient inspection of working equipment on site.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
an overlook that ought to have been seen or noticed by the contractor upon sufficient inspection of working equipment on site.
The risk foreseeability was also provided by the instructions on the use of the lance as stated by the manufacturer.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The risk foreseeability was also provided by the instructions on the use of the lance as stated by the manufacturer.
Mr Jones was working from a height when he suffered the injuries.
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/serious-injuries/head-injury-compensation-claim.htm 86%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Ford 71%
http://www.dennismac.co.uk/hands/pr/page5.html 86%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Mr Jones was working from a height when he suffered the injuries.
The instructions on the use of the lance were that working from such height required two people to operate the equipment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The instructions on the use of the lance were that working from such height required two people to operate the equipment.
Such manufacturer instructions are important for the safety of the users of the equipment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Such manufacturer instructions are important for the safety of the users of the equipment.
Had such instructions been followed, at no one time would Moore, the employee of ABC Jetting Ltd would have left the lance unattended,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Had such instructions been followed, at no one time would Moore, the employee of ABC Jetting Ltd would have left the lance unattended,
a situation which would have prevented Mr Jones from using the lance.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
a situation which would have prevented Mr Jones from using the lance.
The ABC Jetting Ltd may have under-estimated the risk of using the lance and regarded it to be an acceptable risk.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The ABC Jetting Ltd may have under-estimated the risk of using the lance and regarded it to be an acceptable risk.
It is the failure of the contractor who has the duty of care at workplace.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It is the failure of the contractor who has the duty of care at workplace.
As stated by Lord Mance in Baker v Quantum (Baker v Quantum 2011)the degree of risk may be acceptable dependent on the current standards.
http://www.blmlaw.com/2114/11452/objects/news/blm-triumphs-in-supreme-court.html 82%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As stated by Lord Mance in Baker v Quantum (Baker v Quantum 2011)the degree of risk may be acceptable dependent on the current standards.
The criteria relevant to reasonable practicability must reflect the criteria relevant to satisfaction of the common law duty of care.
http://www.crownofficechambers.com/assets/docs/news/smith_-v-_edf.doc 100%
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/65800E90001C4C4F94C05C66C0F761AA.ashx 100%
http://www.safety-health-expo.co.uk/files/kevin_bridges.pdf 100%
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSIH65a.html 77%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf 77%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The criteria relevant to reasonable practicability must reflect the criteria relevant to satisfaction of the common law duty of care.
The consideration of the nature, gravity and imminence of the risk and the consequences of the risk involved,
http://www.crownofficechambers.com/assets/docs/news/smith_-v-_edf.doc 67%
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/back-future-3 100%
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/65800E90001C4C4F94C05C66C0F761AA.ashx 90%
http://www.docs.csg.ed.ac.uk/EstatesBuildings/HealthandSafety/LegalUpdate.ppt 90%
http://www.bto.co.uk/media/290081/bto_Insight__January_2014.pdf 100%
http://www.blmlaw.com/2114/11452/objects/news/blm-triumphs-in-supreme-court.html 80%
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSIH65a.html 100%
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013CSOH76.html 100%
http://www.safety-health-expo.co.uk/files/kevin_bridges.pdf 90%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The consideration of the nature, gravity and imminence of the risk and the consequences of the risk involved,
and the proportionality and nature of the steps by which it might be addressed should be considered.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK54163/ 60%
http://www.journalismethics.info/research_ethics/nature_of_journalism_ethics.htm 60%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
and the proportionality and nature of the steps by which it might be addressed should be considered.
The nature,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The nature,
gravity and the imminence of the risk posed by the lance in the case of Mr Jones was determinable through the description of the equipment by the manufacturer and the same confirmed through the evidence given by the manufacturer.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
gravity and the imminence of the risk posed by the lance in the case of Mr Jones was determinable through the description of the equipment by the manufacturer and the same confirmed through the evidence given by the manufacturer.
The steps that were required for the risk to be managed would have been achieved through observation of the equipment use instructions which were known to the users.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The steps that were required for the risk to be managed would have been achieved through observation of the equipment use instructions which were known to the users.
However the contractor did not take the necessary steps to ensure such equipment instructions were adhered to for the safety of the workers.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
However the contractor did not take the necessary steps to ensure such equipment instructions were adhered to for the safety of the workers.
In this sense the proportionality of the steps necessary to prevent the risk and the gravity,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In this sense the proportionality of the steps necessary to prevent the risk and the gravity,
nature and imminence of the risk shows that the contractor should have considered putting in place the necessary precautionary measures to avoid the risk.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
nature and imminence of the risk shows that the contractor should have considered putting in place the necessary precautionary measures to avoid the risk.
Duty of care In the regard of Mr Jones, his employer owed him duty of care.
http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/uploads/M02_ELLI8149_08_SE_C02FINAL.pdf 64%
http://www.iua.co.uk/CMDownload.aspx?ContentKey=0c69e101-3b3b-46bd-a7f5-bec8454c30ea&ContentItemKey=26fb26da-34fe-49ae-9ba5-cd8a87385bf1 91%
http://www.academia.edu/4600591/Breach_of_Duty_of_Care 64%
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_2breach.htm 64%
http://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/the-nature-of-fred-jones-law-company-business-partnership-essay.php 82%
http://www.cilex.org.uk/pdf/U13 Tort SA for June 2014 Final.pdf 73%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Duty of care In the regard of Mr Jones, his employer owed him duty of care.
In the circumstances under which Mr Jones suffered injuries and consequently succumbed to the injuries reveal that proper care was not taken to prevent such injuries from happening.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf 55%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In the circumstances under which Mr Jones suffered injuries and consequently succumbed to the injuries reveal that proper care was not taken to prevent such injuries from happening.
This may be viewed in respect of the steps that were supposed to be taken by Roadbuild plc to ensure safety and health of its workers at the site were ensured.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
This may be viewed in respect of the steps that were supposed to be taken by Roadbuild plc to ensure safety and health of its workers at the site were ensured.
However from the evidence given, the contractor did not carry out any inspections of the site to ensure health and safety of its workers,
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/2254.html 57%
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pdf/ohsa_g.pdf 65%
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/717/Guide-to-the-WHS-Act.DOCX 65%
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Managing_Health_and_Safety/Safety_and_Health_Management_Systems/ 65%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
However from the evidence given, the contractor did not carry out any inspections of the site to ensure health and safety of its workers,
which would have been the first step in demonstrating care for the employees and also non employees at the site.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/2254.html 57%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
which would have been the first step in demonstrating care for the employees and also non employees at the site.
In this case, the contractor sorely relied on the recommendation of the Council about the ABC Jetting Ltd, a company that eventually brought faulty equipment to the site.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In this case, the contractor sorely relied on the recommendation of the Council about the ABC Jetting Ltd, a company that eventually brought faulty equipment to the site.
As evidence was given by the project manager of the contractor company, since the jetting company appeared on the approved contractor list of the Council,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As evidence was given by the project manager of the contractor company, since the jetting company appeared on the approved contractor list of the Council,
the contractor did not carry out the formal checking and approval procedures that were necessary prior to contracting the ABC Jetting company.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the contractor did not carry out the formal checking and approval procedures that were necessary prior to contracting the ABC Jetting company.
Additionally, the project manager stated in his evidence that he knew of some concerns raised regarding the pace or work and the general untidiness that characterised ABC Jetting Ltd,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Additionally, the project manager stated in his evidence that he knew of some concerns raised regarding the pace or work and the general untidiness that characterised ABC Jetting Ltd,
concerns that the contractor assumed or overlooked and proceeded on with working with the company.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
concerns that the contractor assumed or overlooked and proceeded on with working with the company.
This indicated pure negligence on the part of the contractor on taking the basic steps of ensuring the safety and health of the people at site.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
This indicated pure negligence on the part of the contractor on taking the basic steps of ensuring the safety and health of the people at site.
It is common sense that with such concerns being raised about such company would have prompted the contractor to carry out and inspection on the company,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It is common sense that with such concerns being raised about such company would have prompted the contractor to carry out and inspection on the company,
a process that would have sealed most of the faults with the company such as use of faulty and dangerous equipment and the mode of deployment of the workers in the use of such equipment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
a process that would have sealed most of the faults with the company such as use of faulty and dangerous equipment and the mode of deployment of the workers in the use of such equipment.
Manslaughter at work place Homicide at work may be as a result of gross negligence by the employer or by a worker.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Manslaughter at work place Homicide at work may be as a result of gross negligence by the employer or by a worker.
Such negligence may lead to death of self or another at workplace.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Such negligence may lead to death of self or another at workplace.
For the gross negligence manslaughter to occur, there must have been breach of duty of care,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/ 82%
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_32_involuntary/03_gross_neg_mens.htm 82%
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_36_invol_gross_neg.htm 91%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_in_English_law 91%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law 82%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
For the gross negligence manslaughter to occur, there must have been breach of duty of care,
the breach must have caused the death and the breach must have been characterised as gross negligence.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Adomako.php 77%
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/involuntary-manslaughter.htm 92%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/ 77%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the breach must have caused the death and the breach must have been characterised as gross negligence.
The prosecution will have to adequately establish the negligence on the part of the employer and also sub-contractor in order to proceed with the prosecution.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The prosecution will have to adequately establish the negligence on the part of the employer and also sub-contractor in order to proceed with the prosecution.
In the case of Mr Jones,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In the case of Mr Jones,
the ABC Jetting Ltd may be found to be negligent on the fact that the company knew of the faulty equipment but took no step to have the equipment repaired.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the ABC Jetting Ltd may be found to be negligent on the fact that the company knew of the faulty equipment but took no step to have the equipment repaired.
It was also negligent for the contractor, Roadbuild plc to overlook the inspection of the work place and the equipment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It was also negligent for the contractor, Roadbuild plc to overlook the inspection of the work place and the equipment.
The prosecution will have to argue its position to show that the two companies or an individual were grossly negligent.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The prosecution will have to argue its position to show that the two companies or an individual were grossly negligent.
The prosecution will seek to establish how the directors, or the company owed the deceased a duty of care. In this respect,
http://www.baylor.edu/law/faculty/doc.php/117971.pdf 80%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 60%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/wrdeaths/investigation.htm 60%
http://gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/DutiesOfDirectorsOfUKSubsidiaryCompanies.pdf 70%
The prosecution will seek to establish how the directors, or the company owed the deceased a duty of care. In this respect,
the deceased is an employee of Roadbuild plc, which primarily owes its employees a duty of care at work.
http://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/the-nature-of-fred-jones-law-company-business-partnership-essay.php 67%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the deceased is an employee of Roadbuild plc, which primarily owes its employees a duty of care at work.
As discussed, the duty of care related to various steps taken by the employer or the person owing duty of care,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As discussed, the duty of care related to various steps taken by the employer or the person owing duty of care,
as much as practicably and reasonably foreseeable to protect employees from risk.
http://www.blmlaw.com/2301/5961/objects/blm-e-bulletin-topic/date-of-knowledge-in-low-dose-mesothelioma-claims.html 63%
http://www.healthyworkinglives.com/advice/Legislation-and-policy/Workplace-Health-and-Safety/risk-assessment 63%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
as much as practicably and reasonably foreseeable to protect employees from risk.
As established in the case of Mr Jones, the deceased’s employer had the opportunity to take these fundamental steps in executing his duty of care mandate,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As established in the case of Mr Jones, the deceased’s employer had the opportunity to take these fundamental steps in executing his duty of care mandate,
through the inspection of the work place and the work equipment, a task which the employer deliberately decided to ignore.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
through the inspection of the work place and the work equipment, a task which the employer deliberately decided to ignore.
It was the duty of the contractor, and not an employee of ABC Jetting Ltd, to ensure the safety of the deceased as an employee.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It was the duty of the contractor, and not an employee of ABC Jetting Ltd, to ensure the safety of the deceased as an employee.
Though Moore may have been found negligent for leaving the lance unattended, knowing too well that the equipment was not functioning properly and mishandling it could lead to fatal injuries,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Though Moore may have been found negligent for leaving the lance unattended, knowing too well that the equipment was not functioning properly and mishandling it could lead to fatal injuries,
which occurred to Mr Jones,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
which occurred to Mr Jones,
he did not owe any duty of care to Mr Jones as an employee of ABC and therefore Moore is not individually in breach of duty of care but the employer of Mr Jones breached his duty of care.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
he did not owe any duty of care to Mr Jones as an employee of ABC and therefore Moore is not individually in breach of duty of care but the employer of Mr Jones breached his duty of care.
The breach of the duty of care arises when the employer of the deceased is found to have failed to act reasonably as it would be expected of a reasonable person to have acted in such a situation.
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2002/14.html 63%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The breach of the duty of care arises when the employer of the deceased is found to have failed to act reasonably as it would be expected of a reasonable person to have acted in such a situation.
The behaviour portrayed by Roadbuild plc may be argued to be below the minimum standard as expected of such a company.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The behaviour portrayed by Roadbuild plc may be argued to be below the minimum standard as expected of such a company.
The breach of duty of care must show cause to the injuries and death of the victim.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The breach of duty of care must show cause to the injuries and death of the victim.
In the case of Mr Jones, the employer’s negligence resulted to the injuries suffered by the deceased. If the employer had done the necessary,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In the case of Mr Jones, the employer’s negligence resulted to the injuries suffered by the deceased. If the employer had done the necessary,
required and comprehensive inspection of the workplace and the working equipment,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
required and comprehensive inspection of the workplace and the working equipment,
some of the faults that contributed to the injuries and death of Mr Jones would have been established and the necessary precautionary and preventive steps taken.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
some of the faults that contributed to the injuries and death of Mr Jones would have been established and the necessary precautionary and preventive steps taken.
The inspection of the equipment would have easily established the weakness and risk associated with the lance because such fact was well known to Moore who was operating the equipment and such information would have informed Roadbuild plc on the steps to take to minimise or even eliminate the risks posed by the faulty and dangerous jetting lance.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The inspection of the equipment would have easily established the weakness and risk associated with the lance because such fact was well known to Moore who was operating the equipment and such information would have informed Roadbuild plc on the steps to take to minimise or even eliminate the risks posed by the faulty and dangerous jetting lance.
The evidence connecting the death and causation was given by the manufacturer of the equipment when he stated that the pressure produced by the equipment was enough to cut a person into half and that the equipment required two people to operate it while at a height.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The evidence connecting the death and causation was given by the manufacturer of the equipment when he stated that the pressure produced by the equipment was enough to cut a person into half and that the equipment required two people to operate it while at a height.
In this case, though the equipment was being used at a height, only one person was operating it.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In this case, though the equipment was being used at a height, only one person was operating it.
That is one fault that the contractor failed to manage out of deliberate negligence.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
That is one fault that the contractor failed to manage out of deliberate negligence.
Another incriminating evidence was given by Moore when he stated that the equipment was known to have developed a mechanical problem that needed to be rectified which did not happen.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Another incriminating evidence was given by Moore when he stated that the equipment was known to have developed a mechanical problem that needed to be rectified which did not happen.
Though in this case the failure to rectify the equipment was sorely on the owner of the equipment, that is,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Though in this case the failure to rectify the equipment was sorely on the owner of the equipment, that is,
ABC Jetting Ltd,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
ABC Jetting Ltd,
the contractor directly contributed to the causation in the sense that he failed to establish that such equipment was fatal and posed a risk to anyone within the reach of the equipment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the contractor directly contributed to the causation in the sense that he failed to establish that such equipment was fatal and posed a risk to anyone within the reach of the equipment.
In the case of R v F Howe & Son (Engineering) Ltd,
http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case q r s t/r_v_howe_son_engineers_ltd.htm 75%
http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/Insights/RealEstate/051017_EHSBulletin.pdf 75%
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0510002.htm 75%
http://www.1cor.com/1205/?form_1140.replyids=311 75%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/sentencing-hearing.htm 88%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In the case of R v F Howe & Son (Engineering) Ltd,
the Court of Appeal observed that it is through chance whether death or serious injury occurs as a result of serious breach.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0219_Judgment.pdf 62%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the Court of Appeal observed that it is through chance whether death or serious injury occurs as a result of serious breach.
Such serious breach is defined in section 1 of CMCHA as a conduct that amounts to a breach of duty,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 73%
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hhj-gilbart-qc-sentence-remarksr-v-lion-steel.pdf 64%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/wrdeaths/investigation.htm 64%
Such serious breach is defined in section 1 of CMCHA as a conduct that amounts to a breach of duty,
such duty that falls far below what can rationally be likelyor expected from the organisation in such situations.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/author/robwiblin/page/3 58%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
such duty that falls far below what can rationally be likelyor expected from the organisation in such situations.
In this case the jury may consider the seriousness with which the contractor failed and the extent of risk of death that was posed by the breach.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 71%
http://www.clothfairchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/newsletter5.pdf 86%
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2007/Forlin.pdf 71%
In this case the jury may consider the seriousness with which the contractor failed and the extent of risk of death that was posed by the breach.
In this sense the jury may consider Roadbuild plc to have a poor attitude towards safety or lacking safety culture in regard to the extent of breach that led to death of an employee.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/browse/term-graph.html 55%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In this sense the jury may consider Roadbuild plc to have a poor attitude towards safety or lacking safety culture in regard to the extent of breach that led to death of an employee.
The prosecution may approach the case from the perspective of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The law became enforceable in UK in April 2008.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 72%
http://www.academia.edu/8605953/Corporate_Liability_or_a_Lack_of_Accountability 61%
http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/media/3831808/TI-UK-policy-paper-Deterring-and-Punishing-Corporate-Bribery.pdf 61%
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah_Field5/publication/259672879_Published_by_Kluwer_Law_International_Contents/links/0046352d42a7707168000000.pdf 83%
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/catalogue/eDownloadDoc.aspx?filename=496_2009303_51242.PDF&sapmaterialnum=7195&fileserver=EPIC&productid=496 61%
http://www.blmlaw.com/documents/590/Disclosure 13 May09.doc 78%
The prosecution may approach the case from the perspective of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The law became enforceable in UK in April 2008.
The Act provides that corporate bodies such as companies are legal persons and can therefore be prosecuted for a wide range of criminal offences.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/wrdeaths/investigation.htm 75%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The Act provides that corporate bodies such as companies are legal persons and can therefore be prosecuted for a wide range of criminal offences.
In an endeavour to update the law on manslaughter in relation to corporations, the Act overcame the problems that were created by the identification principle.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP06-46.pdf 62%
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3518/1/Complete_PDF.pdf?DDD19 62%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In an endeavour to update the law on manslaughter in relation to corporations, the Act overcame the problems that were created by the identification principle.
From this background, the prosecution of companies for corporate manslaughter is not be limited to identification of the negligence of the controlling person or persons.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhaff/540/540we132.htm 67%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
From this background, the prosecution of companies for corporate manslaughter is not be limited to identification of the negligence of the controlling person or persons.
As provided by the Act, an organisation will be found to have breached the law and as such guilty of corporate manslaughter.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As provided by the Act, an organisation will be found to have breached the law and as such guilty of corporate manslaughter.
This shall occur if the way in which its activities are managed or controlledleads to a person’s death and it amounts to a gross violation of a pertinent duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
This shall occur if the way in which its activities are managed or controlledleads to a person’s death and it amounts to a gross violation of a pertinent duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.
From this perspective, the Roadbuild plc evidently did not manage it operations properly and evidently breached the duty of care it owed to Mr Jones while working.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
From this perspective, the Roadbuild plc evidently did not manage it operations properly and evidently breached the duty of care it owed to Mr Jones while working.
Civil Actions It is common expectation that the dependants or family of the deceased to seek legal redress for the compensation after the loss.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Civil Actions It is common expectation that the dependants or family of the deceased to seek legal redress for the compensation after the loss.
Under normal circumstances, the employers will carry the civil burden of compensating for the deceased due to the responsibility they have over the employees through the contracts.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Under normal circumstances, the employers will carry the civil burden of compensating for the deceased due to the responsibility they have over the employees through the contracts.
In most cases the liability of the employer comes in the responsibility the employer has over himself, referred to as the primary liability,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In most cases the liability of the employer comes in the responsibility the employer has over himself, referred to as the primary liability,
and also from the negligent acts of the employees which are committed in the course of employment, referred to as vicarious liability.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
and also from the negligent acts of the employees which are committed in the course of employment, referred to as vicarious liability.
Thus the employers owe their employees duties drawn from statutory and common law.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Thus the employers owe their employees duties drawn from statutory and common law.
Civil liability for breach of statutory duty An employer may find himself in a civil liability as a result of breach of statutory duty he owes to a person,
http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/Cases Chapter 25/Boyle v Kodak Ltd.doc 78%
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/personalinjury/synopsis/448:449/Establishing-legal-liability/Proving-negligence-or-breach-of-statutory-duty 67%
http://tort.laws.com/tort-law 61%
http://global.oup.com/uk/orc/law/tort/tort_qanda/resources/terms/ 78%
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Torts.Fall.03.Perry.doc 67%
http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Adjustment of Public Liability Claims.pdf 72%
http://www.kcpartnership.com/resources/publication/Architects Duties.pdf 67%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Civil liability for breach of statutory duty An employer may find himself in a civil liability as a result of breach of statutory duty he owes to a person,
be it an employee or non-employee, thus giving the claimant a cause of action in tort whether the defendant is prosecuted of the breach of duty or not.
http://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health-Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/Liability,-Immunity,-and-Workers’-Compensation-Issues-in-Public-Health-Emergencies-Issue-Brief/ 64%
http://www.amclaw.com/Articles/Recent-2002-California-Tort-Law-By-Eric-A-Schneider.pdf 64%
http://hawaii.gov/jud/23899.htm 64%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
be it an employee or non-employee, thus giving the claimant a cause of action in tort whether the defendant is prosecuted of the breach of duty or not.
However, for the cause of action to be allowed for compensation by the court,
http://haberpolk.com/ohio-supreme-court-bars-public-policy-claims-for-employees-terminated-while-receiving-workers-compensation/ 100%
http://www.brownjames.com/articledetails.aspx?id=263 83%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages 83%
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1808&context=tlr 83%
http://www.workerscompensationok.com/law:statute-of-limitations 83%
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/compensation/ 83%
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jurisdiction.aspx 67%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
However, for the cause of action to be allowed for compensation by the court,
the statutes that give rise to the cause of action have to be identified and allowed to raise such actionable cause.
http://adagreatlakes.com/Publications/Legal_Briefs/BriefNo004_HarassmentRetaliationandDiscipline.pdf 77%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the statutes that give rise to the cause of action have to be identified and allowed to raise such actionable cause.
The case brought before the court must fall within the provided wordings of the statute used to raise the cause of action.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The case brought before the court must fall within the provided wordings of the statute used to raise the cause of action.
Mr Jones’ dependents may opt to raise a civil suit against the employer of Mr Jones for compensation for loss of life due to breach of duty of care.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Mr Jones’ dependents may opt to raise a civil suit against the employer of Mr Jones for compensation for loss of life due to breach of duty of care.
The dependents may argue that the employer owed Mr Jones duty of care while working for them,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The dependents may argue that the employer owed Mr Jones duty of care while working for them,
thus the employer had the opportunity to provide protective and preventive measures which if observed would have prevented Mr Jones from using a faulty equipment at work.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
thus the employer had the opportunity to provide protective and preventive measures which if observed would have prevented Mr Jones from using a faulty equipment at work.
However certain element must be proved for action to be taken. The statute places the obligation on the defendant and the statutory duty was owed to that claimant.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
However certain element must be proved for action to be taken. The statute places the obligation on the defendant and the statutory duty was owed to that claimant.
Regulation 3(1)(a) of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 provides for suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to health and safety of employees to which they are exposed while at work.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Regulation 3(1)(a) of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 provides for suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to health and safety of employees to which they are exposed while at work.
It may be claimed by Mr Jones dependents that Roadbuild plc expressly failed to carry out any assessment that may be regarded suitable and sufficient.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
It may be claimed by Mr Jones dependents that Roadbuild plc expressly failed to carry out any assessment that may be regarded suitable and sufficient.
If is a fact as per the evidence given that the company did not do any assessment as per Regulation 3 but relied on the recommendations of the Council, thus the breach of the Regulation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
If is a fact as per the evidence given that the company did not do any assessment as per Regulation 3 but relied on the recommendations of the Council, thus the breach of the Regulation.
The risk that Mr Jones suffered may or may not practicably be foreseeable but through the assessment, the use of faulty and dangerous equipment causing injury to the user may be argued to be practicably foreseeable in consideration of the instructions of use of the equipment as provided by the manufacturer.
The work of Mr Jones did not involve using the faulty equipment nor was he assigned to remove any concrete from the beams. However the designation in this case does not disqualify the Regulation 3 from being used as an actionable cause.
In the case of Uddin v Associated Portland Cement (1965),
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In the case of Uddin v Associated Portland Cement (1965), an employee who was a machinery attendant suffered injuries when he attempted to remove a pigeon by climbing up a steel ladder to a platform and consequently climbing on a cabinet which housed an unguarded revolving steel shaft.
His clothes got entangled in the shaft. It was not foreseeable in that particular case that the employee or any other employee would get caught in the machine,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
His clothes got entangled in the shaft. It was not foreseeable in that particular case that the employee or any other employee would get caught in the machine,
it was however foreseeable that a maintenance man would, while carrying out maintenance, fail to turn off the machine.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
it was however foreseeable that a maintenance man would, while carrying out maintenance, fail to turn off the machine.
The inhabitants were in breach of Section 14(1). The claimant was entitled to protection even though he was not acting within the scope of his employment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The inhabitants were in breach of Section 14(1). The claimant was entitled to protection even though he was not acting within the scope of his employment.
The employer of Mr Jones was also in breach of Regulation 4 (The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999) as read with principles specified in Schedule 1which provides for application of principles of prevention.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The employer of Mr Jones was also in breach of Regulation 4 (The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999) as read with principles specified in Schedule 1which provides for application of principles of prevention.
Principles a,b and c specifies avoiding of risks, evaluation of the risks which cannot be avoided and combating of the risks at source.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Principles a,b and c specifies avoiding of risks, evaluation of the risks which cannot be avoided and combating of the risks at source.
On these provisions and principles, Mr. Jones employer did not evaluate any risks posed to the workers and therefore did not avoid nor combat the risks.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
On these provisions and principles, Mr. Jones employer did not evaluate any risks posed to the workers and therefore did not avoid nor combat the risks.
The claimant may argue that a malfunctioning equipment that was known to the user that it was not functioning as required thus having a detectable fault which revealed a foreseeable risk could be determined through an evaluation and therefore the risk posed by the equipment could be avoided or combated upon determination.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The claimant may argue that a malfunctioning equipment that was known to the user that it was not functioning as required thus having a detectable fault which revealed a foreseeable risk could be determined through an evaluation and therefore the risk posed by the equipment could be avoided or combated upon determination.
Contrary, the employer overlooked all that and therefore was in breach of Regulation 4. This Regulation may also be argued together with Regulation 5 providing for Health and safety arrangements.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Contrary, the employer overlooked all that and therefore was in breach of Regulation 4. This Regulation may also be argued together with Regulation 5 providing for Health and safety arrangements.
Regulation 5(1) provides for the employer to make and cause effect to such preparations as are suitable,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Regulation 5(1) provides for the employer to make and cause effect to such preparations as are suitable, in regard to the nature of his activities and the extent of his undertaking, for aneffective preparation, organisation, regulation, observation and review of the preventive measures.
The claimants would be able to argue that the employer was in breach of this regulations as no such health and safety arrangements as provided by Regulation 5 were effected thus leaving the workers exposed to risks.
Regulation 8 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 provides for Processes for serious and impending danger and for danger areas.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Regulation 8 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 provides for Processes for serious and impending danger and for danger areas.
Regulation 8(1)(a) provides that every employer shall institute and where necessary cause effect to suitable procedures that shall be followed in case of serious and looming danger to persons at work in his undertaking.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Regulation 8(1)(a) provides that every employer shall institute and where necessary cause effect to suitable procedures that shall be followed in case of serious and looming danger to persons at work in his undertaking.
Regulation 8 (1)(a) provides that every employer shall ensure that none of his employees has access to any area occupied by him which it is essential to restrict access on grounds of health and safety unless the employee concerned has received adequate health and safety instruction.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/made 83%
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2000/388/made 80%
http://docs.minszw.nl/pdf/92/2008/92_2008_1_20145.pdf 83%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Regulation 8 (1)(a) provides that every employer shall ensure that none of his employees has access to any area occupied by him which it is essential to restrict access on grounds of health and safety unless the employee concerned has received adequate health and safety instruction.
In light of these regulations, the employer was supposed, but did not,
http://www.wcc.sc.gov/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx 75%
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/VEVRAA_faq.htm 63%
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/articles/pages/employer-benefits-doma.aspx 63%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In light of these regulations, the employer was supposed, but did not,
carry out the sufficient and necessary evaluations to enable him carry out the required procedures for serious and imminent danger.
http://www.belmontgrosvenor.co.uk/userfiles/file/Policies%20Sept%202014/EYFS/Health,%20Safety%20&%20Welfare%20Requirements%20Policy.pdf 88%
http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l21_management_of_health_and_safety_at_work.pdf 63%
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Managing_Health_and_Safety/Safety_Statement_and_Risk_Assessment/ 69%
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Managing_Health_and_Safety/Safety_and_Health_Management_Systems/ 75%
http://www.ambulance.wales.nhs.uk/assets/documents/29b449e3-3d98-44c2-8d8e-1e8aa2321c49635497576995056107.doc 88%
http://www.coombesforestry.com/uploads/3/0/3/7/3037479/health_and_safety_policy_june_2014.pdf 81%
http://www.mhhcontracting.co.uk/download/i/mark_dl/u/4012700963/4612300856/policy.pdf 69%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
carry out the sufficient and necessary evaluations to enable him carry out the required procedures for serious and imminent danger.
As provided in regulation 8 (2) (a),
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/52_200_206.html 75%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As provided in regulation 8 (2) (a),
the procedure required any persons at work who are exposed to serious and imminent danger be informed of the nature and hazard and the steps to be taken to protect them from the hazard, so far as is practicable.
http://www.abertay.ac.uk/media/Health & Safety policy and procedures.pdf 96%
http://thehealthandsafetymanager.com/health-safety-help-support/healthandsafetyreferencesection/51-health-safety-emergency-procedures 96%
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/publications/serious-and-imminent-dangers/ 91%
http://www.cleapss.org.uk/attachments/article/0/Management Regs Eating Danger Areas.pdf?Conferences/ASE 2013/ 96%
http://www.slideshare.net/hijaziosama/nebosh-important-qa 70%
http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l21_management_of_health_and_safety_at_work.pdf 78%
http://www.porthosp.nhs.uk/Downloads/Policies-And-Guidelines/Health-and-Safety-Policies/Health_and_Safety_Policy.doc 91%
http://colinpeacock.com/assets/_H&S2014.pdf 96%
http://www.vertic.org/media/National Legislation/Mauritius/MU_Occupational_Safety_Health_Act.pdf 83%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
the procedure required any persons at work who are exposed to serious and imminent danger be informed of the nature and hazard and the steps to be taken to protect them from the hazard, so far as is practicable.
As regards these regulations, the employer did not give any information to workers at the site to protect them from imminent danger that was determinable at the time.
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Managing_Health_and_Safety/Safety,_Health_and_Welfare_at_Work_Act_2005/ 53%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
As regards these regulations, the employer did not give any information to workers at the site to protect them from imminent danger that was determinable at the time.
Regulation 10 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 provides for information for employees.
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/businessandenterprise/regulation/healthandsafety/safetyatwork.aspx 92%
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hsc13.pdf 75%
http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l21_management_of_health_and_safety_at_work.pdf 92%
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/resources/health_and_safety/health_and_safety_legal_summaries/management_of_health_and_safety_regulations_1999.cfm 92%
http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/6/l/brownbook__UCU_logo.pdf 92%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_at_Work_etc._Act_1974 67%
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/safety/policy-statements/s1-02/ 75%
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Regulation 10 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 provides for information for employees.
Regulation 10(1) provides for every employer to provide his employees with understandable and appropriate information on the risks to their health and safety identified by the assessment. The employer should provide information on preventive and protective measures and the procedures referred to in regulation 8(1)(a) and measures provided in regulation 4(2)(a) of the Fire Precautions Regulations.
Employees should also be given information concerning the identity of the persons nominated by the employer in harmony with regulation 8(1)(b) and regulation 4(2)(b) of the Fire Precautions Regulations 1997 as well as information on the risks notified to the employer as per regulation 11(1)(c).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Employees should also be given information concerning the identity of the persons nominated by the employer in harmony with regulation 8(1)(b) and regulation 4(2)(b) of the Fire Precautions Regulations 1997 as well as information on the risks notified to the employer as per regulation 11(1)(c).
Though the employer of Mr Jones did not carry out any assessments on the ground to gather information about the imminent risks subjected to the workers,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Though the employer of Mr Jones did not carry out any assessments on the ground to gather information about the imminent risks subjected to the workers,
such failure does not exempt the employer from the responsibility of disseminating such information as provided by the Regulations and therefore not exempt from civil liability arising from the breach of these regulations.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
such failure does not exempt the employer from the responsibility of disseminating such information as provided by the Regulations and therefore not exempt from civil liability arising from the breach of these regulations.
The claimant may argue that if the employer had carried out the necessary and sufficient assessments and evaluations prior to deployment of workers,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The claimant may argue that if the employer had carried out the necessary and sufficient assessments and evaluations prior to deployment of workers,
he would have been able to gather enough information about the risky areas and such information would have been shared with the employees and therefore proper and necessary precautions and preventive measures taken even by the employees themselves to protect themselves from injuries.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
he would have been able to gather enough information about the risky areas and such information would have been shared with the employees and therefore proper and necessary precautions and preventive measures taken even by the employees themselves to protect themselves from injuries.
The injury suffered must be of a type contemplated by the statute The claimant must be able to show that the injuries suffered by Mr Jones were of the type contemplated by the statutes.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The injury suffered must be of a type contemplated by the statute The claimant must be able to show that the injuries suffered by Mr Jones were of the type contemplated by the statutes.
The relation between the injuries suffered and the cause of the injuries must be within the provisions of the statutes.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The relation between the injuries suffered and the cause of the injuries must be within the provisions of the statutes.
In Close v Steel Co of Wales (1962) Mr Close who was an employee of the defendant suffered injuries in the eye while working in the Abbey Works in Glamorgan.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In Close v Steel Co of Wales (1962) Mr Close who was an employee of the defendant suffered injuries in the eye while working in the Abbey Works in Glamorgan.
Mr Close was operating an electric drill whose drill bit shuttered and a fragment went into his eye.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Mr Close was operating an electric drill whose drill bit shuttered and a fragment went into his eye. The House of Lords held that section 14 of The Factories Act 1937 was not breached because the use of bits was not reasonably foreseeable.
The Act envisaged persons becoming entangled with dangerous parts and not flying fragments being ejected and causing injury. The bit was not considered as dangerous.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
The Act envisaged persons becoming entangled with dangerous parts and not flying fragments being ejected and causing injury. The bit was not considered as dangerous.
In this regard, the injuries suffered by Mr Jones must be established if they were reasonably foreseeable.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
In this regard, the injuries suffered by Mr Jones must be established if they were reasonably foreseeable.
Mr Jones was not designed to use the water jetting,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/ 0%
Mr Jones was not designed to use the water jetting, and therefore it may not have been practicably foreseeable that he would take the jetting lance to remove the concrete himself.
It was also not foreseeable that Mr Moore who was assigned to and operated the jetting lance would leave the lance unattended for Mr Jones to come and take it upon himself.
However it was practicably foreseeable that any person would suffer injuries from the jetting lance provided that the person did not know how to operate it nor the force produced by the equipment which could throw the user off balance as it happened to Mr Jones.
The defendant must have breached that duty In Summers v Frost (1955) the claimants hand come into contact with moving grinding wheel in breach of Factories Act 1961 section 14(1).
The defendant argued that the machine would have been unusable if the grinding wheel was securely fenced.
http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/cases/summers_v_frost.html 100%
http://www.aim-to-train.co.uk/page11.php 83%
http://www.imaddagher.com/grinding-mill-plant/grinding-machine-nb.html 83%
http://www.woodworkersinstitute.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3568 83%
The defendant argued that the machine would have been unusable if the grinding wheel was securely fenced.
The Court refused to read the words so far as is reasonably practicable into the statute and rejected the proposition.
http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/cases/summers_v_frost.html 100%
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00595.x/pdf 62%
http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html 62%
The Court refused to read the words so far as is reasonably practicable into the statute and rejected the proposition. In this regard as concerns Mr Jones, the claimant must be able to prove that the duty owed to him was breached.
The question may be raised as to whether Mr Jones was owed any duty of care in regard to falling from the scaffold. As much as falling may be practicably foreseeable, was falling as a result of force from water jetting equipment practicably foreseeable?
In regard to such falling as suffered by Mr Jones and the duty of care owed to him by the employer,
http://www.iua.co.uk/CMDownload.aspx?ContentKey=0c69e101-3b3b-46bd-a7f5-bec8454c30ea&ContentItemKey=26fb26da-34fe-49ae-9ba5-cd8a87385bf1 75%
In regard to such falling as suffered by Mr Jones and the duty of care owed to him by the employer,
would the ‘so far as’ is reasonably practicable be applicable in the situation?
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/633/How_to_Manage_Work_Health_and_Safety_Risks.doc 71%
would the ‘so far as’ is reasonably practicable be applicable in the situation?
As argued earlier,
https://www.facebook.com/TheNewTimesPublications/posts/392895777486179 100%
As argued earlier,
suffering injuries as a result of using the water jetting lance may be practicably foreseeable or even falling as a result of force from the lance may be practicably foreseeable.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/23135223/Part-2-English 56%
suffering injuries as a result of using the water jetting lance may be practicably foreseeable or even falling as a result of force from the lance may be practicably foreseeable.
However, Mr Jones falling as a result of using the lance from the scaffold and falling may not be practicably foreseeable. In the same sense, it may be argued that duty of care in this regard may be subjected to so far as reasonably practicable.
The breach of statutory duty must have caused the injury The claimant in the case of Mr Jones must be able to prove that the breach to statutory duty resulted to injury and death.
In this regard, the claimant must be in knowledge of the statutes and regulations in relation to the breach that led to death of Mr Jones. Regulation 4 of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 provides for suitability of work equipment.
Regulation 4(2) provides that upon selection of work equipment the employer shall have regard to the working conditions as well as the dangers to the health and safety of individuals who exist in the premises or undertaking in which that work equipment is to be used and any extradanger posed by the use of that work equipment.
The employer of Mr Jones ought to have observed this regulation and known the risk the equipment it posed to the workers at site. The duty applies also to Regulation 6(2) (The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) which requires every employer to ensure work equipment exposed to conditions that may cause deterioration which may result in dangerous situations is inspected at suitable intervals and for each time that exceptional circumstances liable to jeopardise safety of the equipment have happened, to certify that health and safety conditions are upheld and that any worsening can be detected and rectified in good time.
Use of the jetting lance by Mr Jones lacked instructions and information on the use of the equipment. Although not expressly evident that if the instructions were provided to Mr Jones on the use of the equipment would have saved him from the injuries since it is not known whether he would have taken time to read and follow the instructions of use, failure of the employer to ensure such instructions pertaining to the use of the equipment are provided clearly shows a breach of the regulation.
The employer ought to have ensured instructions as to the conditions and methods by which the equipment may be used. Information about any foreseeable abnormal situations and the action that should be taken in the eventual occurrence of the situation and then draw conclusion from the experience gained in the use of the equipment.
Negligence Mr Jones’ dependents may sue for compensation basing the injuries and death suffered by Mr Jones as a result of negligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law 56%
http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4568&context=lalrev 63%
http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=negligence&page=1&sort=rating 63%
Negligence Mr Jones’ dependents may sue for compensation basing the injuries and death suffered by Mr Jones as a result of negligence.
Injuries suffered as a result of carelessness of another may bring about a civil action in the tort of negligence.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tort Law 73%
http://webpage.pace.edu/pacelegalassistance/negligence.htm 64%
Injuries suffered as a result of carelessness of another may bring about a civil action in the tort of negligence.
However the claimants in the case of Mr Jones must satisfy certain elements.
http://www.steptoe.com/newsletters-167.html 78%
However the claimants in the case of Mr Jones must satisfy certain elements.
The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care As argued earlier, the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased being an employer to the deceased.
http://www.academia.edu/1374309/Employees_Compensation_Act_Progress_or_Retrogression 87%
http://issuu.com/parabis/docs/legal_watch_-_pi_047_-_15.01.15?e=4283871/10957330 80%
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/personalinjury/synopsis/448:449/Establishing-legal-liability/Proving-negligence-or-breach-of-statutory-duty 80%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law 73%
http://www.zamlii.org/zm/judgment/high-court/2013/9 73%
http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Liability SIG Legal Review Seminar 2013 – Speaker Notes.pdf 87%
http://www.blmlaw.com/images/uploaded/news/File/Disease review_April13(2).pdf 80%
The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care As argued earlier, the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased being an employer to the deceased.
There must exist reasonable foreseeability and proximity as to the duty of care.
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Duty-of-care.php 78%
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/types-of-claim/negligence-claim.htm 78%
There must exist reasonable foreseeability and proximity as to the duty of care.
A question must also be raised as to whether it is just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty. In the case of Mr Jones,
http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/uploads/M02_ELLI8149_08_SE_C02FINAL.pdf 79%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law 71%
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd991125/macfar-2.htm 71%
http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/new/casebook/cases/Cases Chapter 22/Gwilliam v West Hertforshire Hospital NHS Trust.doc 71%
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod2/cases_precedent_other_issues.htm 71%
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod2/cases_precedent_hol.htm 64%
A question must also be raised as to whether it is just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty. In the case of Mr Jones,
the situation satisfies these elements in that the being an employee of the defendant and working in a construction site, the defendant owed him a duty of care.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/commercial-law/chapter-20 69%
https://new.edu/resources/torts 69%
the situation satisfies these elements in that the being an employee of the defendant and working in a construction site, the defendant owed him a duty of care.
The issue of proximity also applies in that Mr Jones was working within a determinable geographical area with known or determinable working conditions and equipment.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/13-14reappraisals/ector068_13-14.pdf 53%
The issue of proximity also applies in that Mr Jones was working within a determinable geographical area with known or determinable working conditions and equipment.
It is therefore fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the employer.
http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/study-note/degree/liability-duty-of-care-neighbour-caparo 75%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law 100%
http://www.cilex.org.uk/pdf/PDF SA U5 June 09 WEB.pdf 89%
http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/tort-law/negligence-public-policy-cases.php 89%
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_1duty.htm 89%
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_2breach.htm 89%
http://www.adminlaw.org.uk/docs/SC 2012 by Kaufman QC.docx 100%
It is therefore fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the employer.
In the case of Bourhill v Young (1943)there was no duty of care to the claimant. In this case the claimant while descending from a tram heard a motor accident.
http://law-of-tort.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html 82%
http://www.hodderplus.co.uk/myrevisionnotes/a-level-law/AQA-AS-Law/Exam-practice-answers_MRN-AQA-AS-Law_Unit-2.doc 76%
In the case of Bourhill v Young (1943)there was no duty of care to the claimant. In this case the claimant while descending from a tram heard a motor accident.
Though she did not see the accident she however saw the blood on the road later and suffered nervous shock.
http://www.telecoms.net/law/ptsd2.htm 81%
http://portal.nasstar.com/33/files/articles/Mlj70-2 nervous shock.pdf 69%
http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002fjriss.2010.1.issue-1$002fjriss-2013-00016$002fjriss-2013-00016.pdf?t:ac=j$002fjriss.2010.1.issue-1$002fjriss-2013-00016$002fjriss-2013-00016.xml 88%
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr_Tabrez_Ahmad/publication/228141610_Nervous_Shock_Development__Dilemma_A_Comparative_Study_of_UK_USA_and_Canada/links/0c96051762b15a029e000000.pdf 94%
http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2491&context=ohlj 69%
Though she did not see the accident she however saw the blood on the road later and suffered nervous shock.
It was observed and argued that the injury suffered by the claimant was not foreseeable as she was far from the accident and was not owed any duty of care.
http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/tort-law/negligence-duty-cases.php 71%
http://genius.com/Supreme-court-of-california-dillon-v-legg-annotated 65%
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/catalogue/edownloaddoc.aspx?sapmaterialnum=6855&productid=396&filename=396_2009168_8347.pdf&fileserver=EPIC 71%
http://www.12kbw.co.uk/userfiles/Documents/Unpicking_the_patchwork_quilt_secondary_victims_and_psychiatric_injury.pdf 71%
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/1992/2.pdf 71%
http://www.byromstreet.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nervous-Shock-Who-Recovers.pdf 71%
http://www.39essex.com/docs/articles/article_-_duty_of_care_-_piba_-2502.pdf 65%
It was observed and argued that the injury suffered by the claimant was not foreseeable as she was far from the accident and was not owed any duty of care.
In the contrary, Mr Jones was working within the work site and was owed duty of care by the employer while at work.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1596173.html 79%
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/personalinjury/synopsis/471:483/Types-of-claim/Employer’s-liability 64%
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013CSOH30.html 71%
http://www.iua.co.uk/CMDownload.aspx?ContentKey=0c69e101-3b3b-46bd-a7f5-bec8454c30ea&ContentItemKey=26fb26da-34fe-49ae-9ba5-cd8a87385bf1 71%
In the contrary, Mr Jones was working within the work site and was owed duty of care by the employer while at work.
The defendant was in breach of duty In this regard,
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Breach-of-duty.php 75%
http://www.academia.edu/4600591/Breach_of_Duty_of_Care 75%
The defendant was in breach of duty In this regard,
various issues may be raised as to the foreseeability of the harm in which case the defendant would not be liable if he sufficiently proves that the harm was not foreseeable.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/commercial-law/chapter-20 74%
various issues may be raised as to the foreseeability of the harm in which case the defendant would not be liable if he sufficiently proves that the harm was not foreseeable.
In Roe v Minister of Health (1954) the claimant got paralysed after being administered a spinal anaesthetic that was contaminated with phenol.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06688.x/full 73%
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/submissions/pdf/submissions_Dr.Charles_Smith/01-1-44-Cases_referenced_in_Dr.Smith_Submissions.pdf 60%
https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23741312/1502877885/name/Chapter 12 Tort.ppt 67%
In Roe v Minister of Health (1954) the claimant got paralysed after being administered a spinal anaesthetic that was contaminated with phenol.
The anaesthetic got tainted with phenol as a result of being stored in a syringe that was earlier stored in phenol.
http://www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/shipping/004CHAPTERFOURTRADE2.pdf 64%
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/other_material/tort/2_breach/4_foreseeability.htm 73%
http://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=448572 73%
The anaesthetic got tainted with phenol as a result of being stored in a syringe that was earlier stored in phenol.
It was unknown at the time that phenol could seep through the cracks in the syringe.
http://www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/shipping/004CHAPTERFOURTRADE2.pdf 100%
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/other_material/tort/2_breach/4_foreseeability.htm 88%
http://www.histansoc.org.uk/july-aug.html 75%
http://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=448572 88%
https://chemtips.wordpress.com/page/3/ 75%
It was unknown at the time that phenol could seep through the cracks in the syringe.
Mr Jones on the other hand suffered injuries when he fell from the scaffold as a result of pressure that was produced by the water jetting lance used at the site.
http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/14882/prosecutions_2003.pdf 53%
Mr Jones on the other hand suffered injuries when he fell from the scaffold as a result of pressure that was produced by the water jetting lance used at the site.
It was known that the force from the lance could throw a person off balance, a phenomenon that necessitated operation of the lance by two people especially when working from a height.
It was therefore evident that the harm of using the equipment that caused his fall and the eventual injuries and death were foreseeable and ought to have been mitigated in time.
The foreseeable harm likely to be caused through the use of the jetting lance could easily be estimated and any reasonable person was able to weigh or estimate the magnitude of risk posed by the equipment and the positioning of the lance.
The fact that it was known that force from the lance could throw a person off balance ought to have indicated to the employer that in an event such a thing happened to an employee working from a height, the magnitude or the injury likely to be caused would be high.
Such realisation would prompt any reasonable person to take the necessary required precautions to prevent such happening. In Hilder v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1961)the defendants were found answerable for allowing some boys to play football from some land the defendants occupied.
The land was quite close to the road that a boy kicked the ball into the road which caused a fatal accident. The defendants were thus found negligent. The consequence of the magnitude of the risk posed must be factored in determining negligence.
In Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) an employee, the claimant, who had only one eye was employed in a job that posed risk to eye injury.
http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/uploads/M02_ELLI8149_08_SE_C02FINAL.pdf 67%
http://www.slideshare.net/KenishaBrowning/breach-of-duty-6146745 72%
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/personalinjury/synopsis/471:483/Types-of-claim/Employer’s-liability 61%
http://www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/shipping/004CHAPTERFOURTRADE2.pdf 61%
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cans/430_Nelson.pdf 72%
In Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) an employee, the claimant, who had only one eye was employed in a job that posed risk to eye injury.
The defendant should have provided the claimant with goggles since injury to the only eye meant that the consequence on an eye injury would be greater as compared to when a person had both eyes.
http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/uploads/M02_ELLI8149_08_SE_C02FINAL.pdf 52%
The defendant should have provided the claimant with goggles since injury to the only eye meant that the consequence on an eye injury would be greater as compared to when a person had both eyes.
In the same length, the equipment used for water jetting was known to be dangerous and the jetting involved working from heights. It would have therefore been prudent for the employer of Mr Jones to ensure proper measures provided in regard to the use of the equipment since a fall from a high ground could result to broken limbs or even cause death.
It was also known that mishandling of the jetting could cause death since the force from the water coming out of the jetting could cut a person in half, thus killing him.
The claimants in the case of Mr Jones may be able to express their argument for negligence in that the utility of the defendant’s activity is of small social utility.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Torts_Wyman_Spring_2008.doc 56%
The claimants in the case of Mr Jones may be able to express their argument for negligence in that the utility of the defendant’s activity is of small social utility.
This is because the greater the social utility, the less is the defendant likely to be held negligent.
http://www.bitsoflaw.org/tort/negligence/study-note/degree/breach-of-duty-standard-reasonable-care 60%
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/other_material/tort/2_breach/5_other factors.htm 89%
http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/tort-law/negligence-as-a-tort.php 78%
http://www.jura.uni-hamburg.de/public/personen/schaefer/strict_liability_versus_negligence.pdf 78%
This is because the greater the social utility, the less is the defendant likely to be held negligent.
The claimants may also argue on the practicability of precautions in that the cost of managing the risk that was posed by the jetting lance would not be out of proportion and therefore a necessary move.
As it was held in Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)a heavy rainstorm caused the floor of the defendant’s factory to flood. The flooding caused the oil that was normally in troughs on the floor to be washed onto to the floor.
The claimant broke an ankle as a result of a slip though the defendant had put sawdust on the floor to prevent such slipping but the sawdust was not enough to cover the entire floor.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/browse/term-graph.html 67%
The claimant broke an ankle as a result of a slip though the defendant had put sawdust on the floor to prevent such slipping but the sawdust was not enough to cover the entire floor.
The defendants were found not to be answerable since they had done all that they could do to prevent injuries to the employees. In light of this, the claimants in the case of Mr Jones may claim that even if the employer was well aware of the dangers and risks posed to the employees due to the nature and equipment used at the site, there seemed to be no effort taken to prevent any injuries.
The claimant suffered damage as a result of breach The element of whether the negligence of the defendant resulted to injury or death of a person is an arguable and necessary point in the case of Mr Jones.
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/catalogue/edownloaddoc.aspx?sapmaterialnum=6855&productid=396&filename=396_2009168_8347.pdf&fileserver=EPIC 55%
The claimant suffered damage as a result of breach The element of whether the negligence of the defendant resulted to injury or death of a person is an arguable and necessary point in the case of Mr Jones.
This is because the claimants may be able to express that it is as a result of the negligence of Mr Jones employer that he suffered injuries and death.
http://www.bullyonline.org/action/hatton.htm 60%
This is because the claimants may be able to express that it is as a result of the negligence of Mr Jones employer that he suffered injuries and death.
In the case of Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)the claimant’s husband was complaining of vomiting and went to a hospital casualty department.
http://law-of-tort.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html 68%
In the case of Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)the claimant’s husband was complaining of vomiting and went to a hospital casualty department.
The doctor refused to see him and instead told him to see his own GP. The claimant’s husband died five hours later due to arsenic poisoning.
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_1duty.htm 71%
https://www.scribd.com/doc/212572365/English-Tort-Law-Cases 71%
The doctor refused to see him and instead told him to see his own GP. The claimant’s husband died five hours later due to arsenic poisoning.
The defendants were found not to be negligent because their action did not cause the death of the claimant’s husband since he would still have died of poisoning even if the doctor treated him.
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_1duty.htm 54%
https://www.oapublishinglondon.com/article/260 62%
The defendants were found not to be negligent because their action did not cause the death of the claimant’s husband since he would still have died of poisoning even if the doctor treated him.
In the case of Mr Jones,
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/criminal/articles/092310_barefoot-insole-impression.html 100%
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/confidentiality_serious_communicable_diseases.asp 100%
http://www.lifechristiancounseling.com/cebuckingham/Pro Assess and Consult/Case Study – Assessment of Mr. Jones.pdf 100%
https://secure.ce-credit.com/courses/101070/Bipolar-Disorder-A-Case-Study-of-the-movie-MR-JONES 100%
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/nwis/page/74313 100%
https://meds.queensu.ca/central/assets/modules/evidence-search-and-rescue/case_study_meet_mr_jones.html 100%
http://www.manuelsweb.com/ethicspaper.htm 100%
https://www.cnsforum.com/educationalresources/filmforum/mr_jones 100%
http://behavenet.com/mr-jones 100%
In the case of Mr Jones,
the claimants may argue that Mr Jones would not have suffered any injuries but for the negligence of the employer to observe necessary regulations and putting up protective and preventive measures, Mr Jones suffered injuries and died.
http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/jsl/pdfs/back-issues/jsl-6-2.pdf 57%
the claimants may argue that Mr Jones would not have suffered any injuries but for the negligence of the employer to observe necessary regulations and putting up protective and preventive measures, Mr Jones suffered injuries and died.
The harm should be foreseeable The claimants in Mr Jones’ case must prove that the harm was foreseeable. In Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967) the claimant despite protests was sent on a five hundred mile journey in very cold weather.
The claimant suffered frostbite. The defendant argued that damage by way of pneumonia or chilblains was foreseeable, but the actual frostbite injury was not foreseeable.
http://hukuk1.persiangig.com/law-contents/SOURCEBOOK%20ON%20torts.pdf 69%
The claimant suffered frostbite. The defendant argued that damage by way of pneumonia or chilblains was foreseeable, but the actual frostbite injury was not foreseeable.
In the case of Mr Jones, the deceased suffered a fall that resulted to injuries and death.
http://www.rideaccidents.com/2010.html 70%
http://www1.law.umkc.edu/faculty/levit/DefamationPrivacy/spring-2013/JarrettvJones.pdf 60%
http://www.beasleyfirm.com/settlements-and-verdicts/ 60%
In the case of Mr Jones, the deceased suffered a fall that resulted to injuries and death.
The cause of the fall was the force produced by the jetting lance. The jetting lance was known to produce a lot of force that was able to cause imbalance to a person.
It can therefore be claimed that so long as the water jetting was being donefrom a height using a jetting lance that produced enough force that could cause a person to lose balance, then any reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility of the person using the jetting lance losing balance and falling from the height.
In that case it can be deduced that the harm was foreseeable and therefore an actionable cause for tort of negligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort 82%
http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/torts/tortsoutlinemkii.htm 82%
In that case it can be deduced that the harm was foreseeable and therefore an actionable cause for tort of negligence. Vicarious liability In the case of Mr Jones,
the defendant may argue that the injuries and death of the deceased occurred as a result of negligence on the part of ABC Jetting Ltd,
http://www.cruiselawnews.com/tags/cruise/ 57%
the defendant may argue that the injuries and death of the deceased occurred as a result of negligence on the part of ABC Jetting Ltd,
the sub-contractor who was responsible for and owned the jetting lance that caused the fall of Mr Jones.
http://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/the-nature-of-fred-jones-law-company-business-partnership-essay.php 60%
the sub-contractor who was responsible for and owned the jetting lance that caused the fall of Mr Jones.
However in such a defensive claim, it may be argued that it is the duty of the principle contractor to ensure the health and safety of all persons in the working site.
In such a case, it may be claimed that the principle contractor had the vicarious liability to any omission or commission of persons, including legal persons such as ABC Jetting Ltd and therefore such principle contractor is liable for any injuries caused out of negligence or failure to take duty of care to any person on work site.
From this perspective, any commissions and/or omissions by ABC Jetting Ltd or its employees causing any injuries to anyone on the work site in which the Roadbuild plc was the principle contractor, the liability was vicariously carried by the Roadbuild plc.

Author: Barry Holmes