Burden of proof reversed in negligence at work claims

[charitynjw]

http://www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk/cms...Reform-Act.pdf

6. The Explanatory Notes to ERRA (The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013) confirm the intended consequence of this reform as follows:

“The amendment... reverses the present position on civil liability, with the
effect, unless any exceptions apply, that it will only be possible to claim for
compensation in relation to breaches of affected health and safety legislation
where it can be proved that the duty holder (usually the employer) has been
negligent. This means that in future, for all relevant claims, duty-holders will
only have to defend themselves against negligence; there should be no civil
right of action for breach of a duty imposed by certain health and safety
legislation, other than where such a right is specifically provided for.”

[bluebottle]

Re: Burden of proof reversed in negligence at work claims

This is perverse legislation as it gives a green light to couldn't-care-less employers to injure, maim and kill with impunity and without fear of being held to account. However, it does make me wonder whether a switched-on barrister will find a way of having a couldn't-care-less employer held to account by using other legislation.

[nomis]

Re: Burden of proof reversed in negligence at work claims

There was no public consultation on removing or amending civil liability in health and safety and no impact assessment.
Employers are no longer liable in the civil courts for the criminal offence of a breach of the HSWA regulations.

It means that as a worker you can be injured due to an employers breach of a statutory duty within HWSA regulations, but breach of duty by your employer no longer protects you. In every case the worker will have to prove that there employer was negligent.

Does this make the employee responsible, for doing a job with a known risk,when the employer
is exposing or failing to provide essentials to safety. How do employees negotiate safety to prevent negligence/accident exposure to themselves.


Does it roll back the clock to strict liability
''Strictliability dates back to 1898 and the case of Grovesv Lord Wimborne in which theCourt of Appeal ruled “the defence of common employment is notapplicable in a case where injury has been caused to a servant by thebreach of an absolute duty imposed by statute upon his master for his protection.”

It sucks