About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

11 Managerial L. 1 (1971-1972)

handle is hein.journals/ijlm11 and id is 1 raw text is: TURNER v. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Waller J. TURNER v. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. February 9, 1971 Factory - Safety - Electricity regulations - Accident while working on fuse box - Live side of box not isolated - Usual practice - Duties of occupier and workman under regulations - Electricity (Factories Acts) Regulations, 1908 (S.R. & O. 1908, No 1312), reg. I The Electricity (Factories Acts) Regulations, 1908, provide in the Introductory Paragraph: It shall be the duty of the occupier to comply with these Regulations. And it shall be the duty of all ... workmen ... to conduct their work in accordance with these regulations. By regulation 1: All apparatus and conductors shall be sufficient in size and power for the work they are called upon to do, and so ... worked ... as to prevent danger so far as is reasonably practicable. The plaintiff, an electrician, was employed by the defendants at their cable works. He was engaged in putting a new cable into a fuse box about 10 feet above the ground when he received an electric shock. He fell off the ladder from which he had been working and sustained injuries to his back. The plaintiff had been working on the dead side of the fuse box, and as was the usual practice, in such circumstances, he had not isolated the live side of the box. On the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendants on the grounds of breaches of statutory duty including under the Electricity (Factories Acts) Regulations, 1908, and at common law, Held, giving judgment for the plaintiff, (1) that there had been a breach of regulation 1 of the Electricity (Factories Acts) Regulations 1908, in that the fuse box had not been so worked as to prevent danger, it being worked so that it was live, and it would have been reasonably practicable to have prevented danger by isolating the box by turning off the switch (post p. 6A). (2) That the defendants were not in breach of their duty to the plaintiff at common law; the method of work was that usually used and although there was some risk involved in that system, it was not an unnecessary risk (post p. lOB). (3) That there was a difference between the absolute duty of the defendants to comply with the regulations and the plaintiffs duty to conduct his work in accordance with them and as he was doing his work precisely as 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most