Irish politics
When I was presented with the essay title ‘employers liability in tort for injuries suffered by employees at work’ immediately I was interested as I soon realised this law is highly relevant in all our day to day lives . This topic holds a lot of confusion and is a very complex. A lot of uncertainty surrounds the law, this is why I have choose to crytically analyse it thouroughly so I can gain a greater knowledge and hopefully write a great essay. At first I will begin with a brief intoduction into emplyers liability and discuss and analyse how it has developed through history to now. Then I will continue on to make a critical analsis of the law using a variety of cases accompanied by well thought out conclusions and opinions by myself.
In regards to the history of emplyers liability the law has developed quite sunbstantially from its ‘llassies faire’ attitude carried along throughout the late ninteent century where it was seen that any injuries sustained to their employee or plaintiff did not impose any sort of negligence on the emplyer or defendant. It was understodd that if an employee chose to work in that workplace, whether it be dangerous or not, it would be wrong for the employee to claim any sort of negligence or obligations to compensate when a disaster may occure. traditionally the employers were protected under the common law. They felt that the industry was to vital to the progress and sustainability of society that although the labour industry working condiotions may have been poor, in the long run the benefits of it outweighed the risks. Therefore any actions taken by the employee to liability for injuries cause by the neglegamce of the employer were ignored. The doctrine of common employment implied to all working contracts that employee will accept any sort of risks that followed emploment aswell as any injuries abtained from other employees. In (Priestly v Fowler (1837) 3 M & W1)p.115 Val Corbett, tort second ed.) the defence provided that
In regards to the history of emplyers liability the law has developed quite sunbstantially from its ‘llassies faire’ attitude carried along throughout the late ninteent century where it was seen that any injuries sustained to their employee or plaintiff did not impose any sort of negligence on the emplyer or defendant. It was understodd that if an employee chose to work in that workplace, whether it be dangerous or not, it would be wrong for the employee to claim any sort of negligence or obligations to compensate when a disaster may occure. traditionally the employers were protected under the common law. They felt that the industry was to vital to the progress and sustainability of society that although the labour industry working condiotions may have been poor, in the long run the benefits of it outweighed the risks. Therefore any actions taken by the employee to liability for injuries cause by the neglegamce of the employer were ignored. The doctrine of common employment implied to all working contracts that employee will accept any sort of risks that followed emploment aswell as any injuries abtained from other employees. In (Priestly v Fowler (1837) 3 M & W1)p.115 Val Corbett, tort second ed.) the defence provided that