Health and safety law

The employee who is injured can also through the civil courts seek damages, compensation due to injuries caused. This is done under the civil law area like occupier’s liability and negligence (Rosalyn, 2014a: 9).
The verdict of the lord of Artkin to Donogue vs. Stevenson case in 1932 can be used to act as precedence. He propounded that, “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor…” (Rosalyn, 2014b: 5). In Jane’s case, therefore she should go forward and sue the Local Education Authority. This is because they didn’t avoid the increase in the number of children in the class. In the same sense, the employer would have prevented the grievances through adding an additional staff as a protective measure. In Sam’s case, he should not sue his employee since the negligence was on his part when it comes to his injury. He didn’t put on the protective gears despite the head teacher having commented about the same in several occasions. Mr. James is in a position to sue his employer on the basis that the act of Poppy made him break his arm. The head teacher is a representative of Local Education Authority thus making an act of negligence by the head teacher transferable to the Local Education Authority. The fact that Poppy was invited by the head teacher makes her the head teacher’s responsibility and her negative acts therefore can be summed up to be negligence on part of the head teacher. This is based on the fact that the “duty of care is established as one belonging to the employer to take reasonable care for the health and safety of his employees.” (Rosalyn, 2014b: 5).
Jane’s and Mr. James’ case can also be based worth suing in terms of the scope of study. For Jane’s case, the employer would not provide for competent additional staff (Rosalyn, 2014b: 6). For Mr. James case, there was no efficient