Back Injury in UK Law

A doctor is obliged to act in the best interests of his patient. The best interests of a child and his parent normally march hand-in-hand. But when considering whether something does not feel 'quite right', a doctor must be able to act single-mindedly in the interests of the child. He ought not to have at the back of his mind an awareness that if his doubts about intentional injury or sexual abuse prove unfounded he may be exposed to claims by a distressed parent.

The second part requires one, as I think, to ask the question: Was the load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to the particular person concerned? The reference to "him" at the end of the sub-section in my judgment clearly directs attention to the particular employee that one is considering at any particular time. In my opinion, one has to approach the construction of this sub-section, and the meaning of its provisions, giving the words used their ordinary and natural English meaning.

This construction of the phrase is, I think, one which not only accords with the natural meaning of the words according to ordinary English usage, but also with what may be presumed to have been the intention of Parliament. The very fact that, if our construction is right, liability under the sub-section may arise without any fault at all on the part of the employer, seems to me a good reason for not giving the word "likely" a meaning wider than that which it fairly bears.

It follows that, if the appellate process is to work satisfactorily, the judgment must enable the appellate court to understand why the Judge reached his decision. This does not mean that every factor which weighed with the Judge in his appraisal of the evidence has to be identified and explained. But the issues the resolution of which were vital to the Judge's conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them explained.

It is true that there is no contract between police officers and a chief constable. But it would be artificial to rest a judgment on this point: the relationship between the police officers and the chief constable is closely analogous to a contract of employment. The rules to be applied when an employee brings an action against his employer for harm suffered at his workplace are the rules of tort.

The duty to take care is the duty to avoid doing or omitting to do anything the doing or omitting to do which may have as its reasonable and probable consequence injury to others and the duty is owed to those to whom injury may reasonably and probably be anticipated if the duty is not observed.

Beyond this, however, the law in general provides no remedy, however severe the consequences of the distress or grief may be to the health or well-being of the third party and however close his relationship to the victim.