Construction Worker Injury, Employer Liability, Irish Law

Case Study

Benny is a construction worker with a large construction firm. Part of Benny’s duties is preparing loads for lifting with a crane. One day, while getting some scaffolding bars ready to be lifted by the crane, Benny noticed a visible crack in the crane hook.

As his foreman happened to be walking past, Benny brought the weakened crane hook to the foreman’s attention. The foreman replied, “don’t worry about the hook, it’ll be okay, just tie up them bars and attach them to the crane”. Although he was concerned about the hook, Benny did exactly as his foreman told him. As the crane was lifting the scaffolding bars the hook broke and the bars fell onto Benny, causing him severe injuries.

Question

Advise Benny as to his rights and his employer’s obligations under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and any common law, or other, provisions which may apply. Please support your answer with relevant case law.

Experts Answer on Above Questions on Irish Law

Analysis of the case scenario implies that Benny’s position is strong against his employer because an expressive warning was provided to the foreman about the visible crack, and nevertheless instructed Benny to use the crane hook.

Safety, health and welfare at work act 2005

According to the safety, health and welfare at work act 2005, it is important for the employer to practice employee safety, health and welfare at work. The employer is required to provide safe work equipment, safe systems at work, and ensure adequate supervision to reduce any chances of workplace hazards. In the given scenario, the visible crack in the crane hook simply presents a lifting- equipment risk that should have been removed from the service. Employers should not allow the use of defective yee equipment and the safety health and welfare at work act 2007 provides provisions in relation to the work equipment and lifting equipment. A crane hook with visible cracks should not have been used to lift the scaffolding.

Application to the Case

The decision of Benny to follow the instruction given by the foreman does not defeat his claim. The danger was specifically identified and reported before the accident and the employer’s representative directed him to proceed despite the warning. Benny can therefore argue that it is the employer that breached the duty of care by allowing the usage of defective equipment. This clearly indicates the breach of duty and causation because the defect that Benny had reported caused the injuries.

Employer vicarious liability

The employer can also be liable with respect to the negligent instruction for the foreman because he was acting in the course of employment. With respect to the employer, they must argue that Benny knowingly continued the usage of defective hooks. But this particular defense is not that strong because Benny reported that the defect was specifically told by his foreman to continue. Any reduction in the damages would depend on the evidence with respect to what Benny could have done after receiving the instruction. The health and safety authority has the enforcement power as provided by the 2005 act and this is particularly in respect to situations where workplace safety requirements are breached. The incident will therefore have regulatory consequences for the employer.

Case Laws

The findings above are clearly based on the case law title as McNamara v ESB [1975] IR 1 the employer duty to take responsible care for employees’ safety was clearly identified by the Irish authority. Another case law titled as McMahon v Irish Rail [1999] 1 ILRM 81 identified employer’s duty in relation to workplace safety and the circumstances leading to which an employee’s conduct would amount to contributory negligence.

Conclusion

On the basis of the entire analysis, it is concluded that Benny has a strong basis to ask for compensation because the employer had the notice of defective crane hook through Benny’s warning to the foreman, and still, the use of defective machine was authorised. This is clearly supported by the 2005 act that there is a breach of duty and the evidence of common law negligence and vicarious liability was noted.

Want Detailed Answers with References?

Writing a law assignment is challenging because it requires detailed analysis of the case scenario, strong researching skills and ability to correctly apply the case laws using appropriate legislation. With professional Irish law writers, you can order law assignments of any difficulty level. Simply visit our Ireland assignment help homepage to get a professional expert for your assignment. You can also make yourself confident by reviewing the expert written assignments for University College Cork.