13. Employers’ liability

2021 ◽  
pp. 386-396
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Effective Supervision

This chapter discusses employers’ liability and, in particular, the non-delegable duty of care, which employers owe to their employees to ensure that they are reasonably safe when at work. The duty ensures that an employer remains responsible for key tasks even when their obligations have been delegated to another. The duty of care is typically said to have four components (building on Lord Wright’s statement in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd [1938]) comprising the provision of: a competent workforce; adequate material and equipment; a safe system of working (including effective supervision); and a safe workplace.

13. Employers’ liability

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 384-395
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Effective Supervision

This chapter discusses employers’ liability and, in particular, the non-delegable duty of care, which employers owe to their employees to ensure that they are reasonably safe when at work. The duty ensures that an employer remains responsible for key tasks even when their obligations have been delegated to another. The duty of care is typically said to have four components (building on Lord Wright’s statement in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd [1938]) comprising the provision of: a competent workforce; adequate material and equipment; a safe system of working (including effective supervision); and a safe workplace.

13. Employers’ liability

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Effective Supervision

This chapter discusses employers’ liability and, in particular, the non-delegable duty of care, which employers owe to their employees. It is typically said to have four components (building on Lord Wright’s statement in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd) comprising the provision of: a competent workforce; adequate material and equipment; a safe system of working (including effective supervision); and a safe workplace.

Thinking about Publishing? On Seeking Patient Consent to Publish Case Material

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Clulow ◽  
Ernest Wallwork ◽  
Caroline Sehon
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Professional Community ◽  
Case Material ◽  
Clinical Material ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Therapeutic Action ◽  
Scientific Advancement ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Ethical Responsibilities

The onus on therapists to seek the consent of their patients before publishing clinical material may be one reason why so few decide to write about their experience. There are inevitable and unavoidable tensions in balancing the duty of care to patients with other ethical responsibilities, including the needs of the professional community for education and scientific advancement. In this paper, we explore the context and dynamics of seeking consent from couples and families to publish material relating to their therapy and propose a way to manage some of the ethical dilemmas involved in writing about patients that is in keeping with the contemporary analytic literature on the interpersonal unconscious between patient and therapist, and the interpsychic/interpersonal dimensions of therapeutic action. Throughout this paper, the term “patient” is used to designate couples and families as well as individuals.

Directors' Liability in Negligence – Challenging the "Elements of the Tort" Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 485
Author(s):  
Victoria Stace
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Constructive Approach ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Threshold Test

This article suggests that the "elements of the tort" approach to directors' liability in negligence to third parties should be discontinued on the basis that assumption of responsibility as a threshold test is not an element of the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement and a more constructive approach would be to address the policy issues associated with imposing liability on directors as part of the two-stage duty of care inquiry.

Search for Principle - The Government's Liability in Negligence for the Careless Exercise of its Statutory Powers

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 629
Author(s):  
Thomas Geuther
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
High Court Of Australia

For many years the English courts have struggled to develop a principled approach for determining when a public authority can owe a duty of care in respect of the exercise of its statutory powers. Initially, public authorities received no special treatment. Then the courts conferred an almost complete immunity on them, requiring public law irrationality to be established before considering whether a duty could arise. The English approach has not been adopted elsewhere in the Commonwealth. The High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Canada have developed different tests, and the New Zealand courts, while never explicitly rejecting the English position, have never followed it. This paper argues that a modified version of the Canadian Supreme Court's approach should be adopted in New Zealand. It proposes that irrationality be a precondition to the existence of a duty of care only where policy considerations are proved to have influenced the decisions of a public authority in exercising its statutory powers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document