David Branson examines the increasingly divergent approach to legal liability in health & safety at work cases
The law relating to health and safety at work involves a complex interrelationship between civil law and criminal law. The general liability in civil law derives from the common law tort of negligence, with the duty of care developed from the seminal case of Wilson & Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57. This provides the basis for the criminal liability under s 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). The key difference here is that the civil liability is limited by the concept of “reasonable foreseeability” in defining the nature of the duty of care; while in criminal law the duty of care is qualified by the term “reasonably practicable”. In effect, the difference is that “reasonably practicable” involves an element of cost being taken into consideration as against the risk involved, while “reasonably foreseeable” does not.
In addition to the general liability, there is also a more specific liability under various statutory regulations, such as, for example, the Provision and
