Back To Basics: Employer Has Non Delegable Duty For Safe System Of Work. But There Are Limits
In the landmark case English v Wilsons & Clyde Co (1938), a miner, Mr English, was working to repair an airway into a mine that was used as part of the haulage system. He was moving in the shaft when the haulage started. Although he tried to get out, he was trapped by machinery and crushed to death.
Published: January 14th, 2026
4 min read
The company tried to claim that Mr English’s death was his own fault. He could have used a different route or alerted the employee in charge of the machinery. In any case, they had delegated the responsibility for a safe working system to an experienced employee on site.
Originally the company was held not to be liable, but the claimant appealed on the issue of whether employers had a non-delegable duty of care to provide safe systems of work for their workers. The House of Lords ruled that a safe system of work was the responsibility of the employer alone, and this could not be delegated to another employee.
It ruled that the employer was vicariously liable for any employee negligence in this regard. This duty included providing proper materials, employing competent workers and providing effective supervision.
It is for the company to prove a safe system of work was in place.
There are some limits however to the application of this ruling. In the case of Ammah v Keuhne+Nagel Logistics Ltd (2009), Ferdinand Ammah was employed in the despatch department. He needed to obtain a pamphlet from a high shelf out of his reach. He used an up-turned plastic box to raise his height, but the box moved, and he fell, breaking his ankle. Mr Ammah contended that the company should have told him not to use boxes in this way.
In its defence, the company pointed out that it had complied in its duty of care to provide a safe system of work to access the upper shelves. Suitable equipment was available, including a man-riser, steps and a forklift truck. While it had not identified the risk from standing on a box, these other provisions adequately guarded against this risk: that, in standing on a box, Mr Ammah took a risk for which he was solely to blame.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the case, that Mr Ammah had been guilty of causing his own accident since alternative safe methods of accessing items at height had been provided.
The Ammah case is a reminder that an employer’s liability claims relating to safe systems of work can be successfully defended, but it is for the company to prove that an effective safe system of work was in place, that training records show that the employee has been informed of the safe system of work, that appropriate equipment is available, and that adequate supervision is in place.
If the court is satisfied by such things, then an employee liability case may be successfully defended and the case dismissed.
For further information please contact John Myles
