Safe System of Work in UK Law

A statement of the relevant principle of law can be divided into three parts. The essential characteristic of the duty is that, if it is not performed, it is no defence for the employer to show that he delegated its performance to a person, whether his servant or not his servant, whom he reasonably believed to be competent to perform it. Despite such delegation the employer is liable for the non-performance of the duty.

It was contended for the defendants that the negligence of Captain Sas was not negligence in failing to operate the safe system which he had devised. It was rather casual negligence in the course of operating such system, for which the defendants, since Captain Sas was not their servant, were not liable. It involved abandoning the safe system of work which he had devised and operating in its place a manifestly unsafe system.

It is, in my opinion, for that very reason that the Common Law demands that employers should take reasonable care to lay down a reasonably safe system of work. Their duties are not performed in the calm atmosphere of a board room with the advice of experts. They have to make their decisions on narrow window sills and other places of danger and in circumstances in which the dangers are obscured by repetition.

It would not ordinarily be reasonable to expect an occupier of premises having engaged a contractor whom he has reasonable grounds for regarding as competent, to supervise the contractor's activities in order to ensure that he was discharging his duty to his employees to observe a safe system of work.

The starting point is that an Ambulance Service owes the same duty of care towards its employees as does any other employer. An employer owes his employees a duty to take reasonable care to provide safe equipment and a safe system of work, which includes assessing the tasks to be undertaken, training in how to perform those tasks as safely as possible, and supervision in performing them.

In summary, this case demonstrates that in appropriate circumstances the law may impose on a parent company responsibility for the health and safety of its subsidiary's employees.

But, although for acts or omissions amounting to civil wrongs an officer of the Crown can derive no protection from the fact that he was acting in the King's service or even under express command, it is recognised that, where what is alleged against him is failure to fulfil an obligation of care, the character in which he acted, together, no doubt, with the nature of the duties he was in the course of performing, may determine the extent of the duty of care … It could hardly be maintained that during an actual engagement with the enemy or a pursuit of any of his ships the navigating officer of a King's ship of war was under a common law duty of care to avoid harm to such non-combatant ships as might appear in the theatre of operations.