LEGAL IAN SKUSE
EMPLOYERS’ DUTY-OF-CARE T
SOME RECENT CASES HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE OBLIGATION TO KEEP BUSINESS TRAVELLERS SAFE
he Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court dealt with two
substantial cases earlier this year relating to overseas travel arrangements and employers’ duty-of-care. While the facts of any case will differ, both cases show some of the steps, risk assessments and checks that employers would be expected to comply with, to meet the standard of duty-of- care that is required.
IN BREACH Defendant company Stormharbour Securities was a global markets and financial advisory firm with a project in Peru, and Tomas Dusek was their employee. The relationship was governed by an English employment contract. A visit to Peru was arranged for Dusek and others, part of which required transportation by helicopter. On June 6, 2012, a fatal accident occurred in which Dusek and 13 others were killed. The legal claim was
brought by Dusek’s widow and children under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. They alleged that Stormharbour was in breach of its duty-of- care as employers to provide Dusek with a safe place of work, safe equipment and a safe system of working,
BUYINGBUSINESSTRAVEL.COM
arising from the arrangements for the helicopter flight. Because of poor planning for the helicopter journey by the operator, part of the route resulted in a flight by night, when the helicopter struck a mountainside.
The court found that the accident was caused by a lack of knowledge or disregard of limitations to the helicopter, the extremely demanding environment of mountainous terrain, the deteriorating weather conditions and leaving at a time which would require night flying. The crew were tired and should have known they were flying in breach of local regulations.
The judge stated said that employers owe a personal duty to their employees to take reasonable care for their safety, to avoid an employee facing an unnecessary risk. The employers were found liable for breach of duty-of-care in relation to their arrangements with the operator. The case shows the need to consider the safety of transport arrangements in cases such as this. Senior management were aware that the project site was in a remote part of the Andes. It was for the employer to have properly investigated the quality of the helicopter supplier, and to have been
Both cases show the steps that employers are expected to comply with
aware of the flight risks, and it was, therefore, insufficient for Stormharbour to do nothing. A risk assessment should have been carried out. The claimants’ case was proved on liability and the employer found to be in breach of its duty-of-care to Dusek.
RISK ASSESSMENT In another case in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, a small aircraft crashed into a hillside in a remote part of the Republic of Congo and all 11 people on board were killed, including six members of the board of directors of Sundance, which had chartered the plane from Aero-Service. Again, the aircraft
provided had inadequate risk assessment procedures. The judge found that the causes of the crash were pilot error and a failure to identify the proximity of a mountain ridge. There was a lack of proper safety procedures, with no
safety policy or emergency response plan. There was no facility for flight planning. The judge found that Sundance had assumed a responsibility for its employees in respect of the trip and, in particular, relating to the flight that crashed. They were in complete control and organisers of the trip. The duty-of-care owed by Sundance was to take reasonable care when selecting the aviation carrier. However, in this case the duty was only to select the charter-flight company operating the flight. The facts used to select the charter flight company were, in fact, adequate to satisfy Sundance that it appeared to be in compliance with safety precautions and that, therefore, there was no breach of duty on the part of Sundance in this case. While these cases
are similar, relating to the selection of helicopter or aircraft by charter in third-world countries, the cases demonstrate the obligation for employers to review, check and ensure that operations are safe, comply with the duty-of-care owed to employees, and comply with local safety standards.
Ian Skuse is a Partner in Blake Morgan’s Aviation team (
blakemorgan.co.uk) and is based in their London office. Ian was a Partner with Piper Smith Watton LLP, which merged with Blake Morgan LLP on August 1, 2015.
BBT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 129
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132