Case Study Analysis

Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
ISSUES:
The issues involved in this case is that whether Mike, the driver would become successful
if he sues the Get-it-There couriers for his personal injuries.
RULES:
The present case can be analyzed in the light of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work
Act1 and Safety, Health, Wealth at Work Act2 of Ireland. These acts are applied to employers,
employees in all types of employments including self employments. The objective of these acts
is to provide general guidelines in order to prevent occupational accidents or ill health. As per
the provisions, the employers are required to take reasonably practicable measures or steps to
ensure the health, safety and maintenance of the employees as well the third parties during the
course of the employment3.
As per section 2(6) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 , the notion
‘reasonably practicable’ in respect of duties of the employer means that the employer must have
exercised all due care by employing required protective and preventive measures after
identifying the hazards by assessing the risks to safety and health that may result in accidents or
injury to health at the work place and also applying any further steps or measures grossly
disproportionate in regard to the usual, exceptional and unforeseeable nature of any situation that
may result into any accident or injury at work place.
1 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.
2 Safety, Health, Wealth at Work Act, 1999.
3 Connolly, Ursula, and Shivaun Quinlivan. "Accessing justice in cases of occupational bullying in Ireland." The
Irish Community Development Law Journal 5.1 (2016).

2
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
As per section 6(2)a of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work4, the health and safety
duties of the employer were applicable only when the employer had control over the work place.
Again as per section 2(1) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the act does not
provide any reference in relation to the employer having specific control on a workplace
resulting that the duty of the employer to provide safety, health and welfare of employees in the
workplace that extends to other places than the main work place.
According to the case of Kielthy v Ascon Ltd, there exists a duty on the employer to
ensure that that there lies a safe way into and out of the workplace5. As per section 8(2)(c) (i) of
the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 , the employer has a duty to ensure that the
design, maintenance and provision of the workplace must be such that it will not cause danger to
the health, safety and welfare of the employees.
The employers have a statutory duty to ensure that any plant, machinery or other articles
for using in workplace will not cause any threat or danger to the health, safety and welfare of the
employees6. In the case of Deegan v Langan, the employer was held liable for the injury
sustained by its employee by losing eye sight during the course of his employment7.
In another case of Heeney v Dublin Corporation, the employer was held responsible for
his failure to provide breathing tool to his employees as such breathing tool is very useful for the
firemen and has been provided to other fire brigades of the country8. However, even though the
employer supplies proper equipments to his employees, it will be not be sufficient to ensure that
the employer has complied totally with the statutory duties. As per section 8(2)(c)(iii) of the
4 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work 1989.
5 Kielthy v Ascon Ltd [1969] IR 122.
6 Bernstein, Adam. "Employee references: understanding your obligations as an employer." Journal of Aesthetic
Nursing 7.6 (2018): 334-336.
7 Deegan v Langan [1966] 1 IR 373.
8 Heeney v Dublin Corporation Unreported, High Court, Barron J, 16 May 1991.