- 20 Marks
BCL – L1 – Q32 – Employer Liability
Question
Kwame Yeboah is the Head Labourer at Vision Seed Academy School who resides on the campus. Among his duties is the washing of the school buses. In view of frequent water shortages in the neighbourhood of the school, Kwame decided to keep the tap to the main water reservoir open at midnight and fit a water hose to it in order to store enough water for washing. This practice is well known to Management of the school.
One night Kwame could not wake up to turn off the tap as he usually does, which overflowed the reservoir and flowed to the adjoining house where the owner kept fowls. A few fowls died from the sudden overflow of water through the house. The neighbour is upset and is threatening court action against the school. Management of the school thinks Kwame has been negligent and must therefore be made to pay for the dead fowls. Kwame has come to you for advice as the mishap occurred in the line of duty.
You are required to advise in the context of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) and decided cases.
Answer
Section 9 (a) of Labour Act, 2003, (Act 651), provides that work and appropriate raw materials, machinery, equipment and tools must be provided.
Explain Duty of Care – Employer and worker.
Candidate shall identify that not waking to close the tap and employer not providing appropriate resources -contributory negligence, with appropriate case (Kotiawusu v Goka [1992] 1 GLR 302-311).
Duty of the employer towards worker is threefold: Competent staff, Appropriate raw materials and provide supervision (Korley v State Construction Corporation).
He was doing his work under the circumstances he finds himself (Ekem v Wiseway Cleaners Ltd [1984-86] 1 GLR 61).
The employer is vicariously liable for the torts of the worker committed in the course of duty.
In Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the defendants employed contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors filled a disused reservoir with water and the water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining property. The plaintiff secured a verdict at Liverpool Assizes. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision.
Hence the employer is liable for the cost of the dead fowls.
- Tags: Duty of care, Employment Law, Negligence, Rylands v Fletcher, Vicarious Liability
- Level: Level 1
- Topic: Employment Law
- Uploader: Samuel Duah