Back Injury in UK Law

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.

Nevertheless, like Lord Justice May, I have been driven to the conclusion that Mr. Darlow is right in submitting that one must take the words of the sub-section simply as they stand.

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. However, fortunately for them, as well as for their employers, the mere fact that a particular job may involve some lifting operations does not necessarily render them unemployable for such purposes.

In my view the Court of Appeal reached the right conclusion on the issue arising in the present cases. Ultimately the factor which persuades me that, at common law, interference with family life does not justify according a suspected parent a higher level of protection than other suspected perpetrators is the factor conveniently labelled 'conflict of interest'. A doctor is obliged to act in the best interests of his patient.

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.