Case Law Development -Supreme Court

[Davo]

With reference to this link about Noise at Work


http://info.beachcroft.com/ve/ZZ73VV74V753195l61h4


I think the judgement of the Supreme Court has relevance to fire safety and seek opinion, please


davo

[kurnal]

Davo it leaves me a little confused.

"The Supreme Court makes it clear that when assessing what is or is not safe courts will, rightly, have regard to standards and knowledge of the day and that foreseeability is relevant not only to reasonable practicability but also to the question of what is "safe" under the relevant legislation. "

Is that standards and knowledge of the day the  factory installations were installed or the date the injury was caused or the day of the court case?

I suppose there is a difference with fire in that the effects of fire are acute - if there is no fire there is no injury and therefore no claim. So no matter how serious the fire risk is, the consequences  will not be realised unless there is a fire whereas hearing loss, asbestosis, joint damage etc are more a chronic things that develop over a long time.

[Davo]

Hi Prof

There would appear to be several issues here

1. The issue of allowing only two years to apply the new standard
2. The rejection of the 'safety by statistics' approach
3. The apparent preference for a BS over Statutory Regulation
4. Whilst an employer might carry out all the work that was required under legislation, there is an extra requirement in that if further work is identified either by BS or Risk Assessment, it is incumbent on the employer to carry out that work.

In regard to your question, like fire, H & S requires an employer to keep up to date with developments and so both in the case of installation and the date of the incident any investigation would seek to identify if this was the case, and, as you say, no doubt the legal eagles

davo