Amendment No. 32, which is part of this group, illustrates a point that is, in a sense, supplementary and perhaps goes a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, went. If relevant duties of care are to cover all those types of negligence in respect of which some relevant party is killed, the precise legal foundation of the duty of care is surely no more than a lawyer’s trick. Surely the Bill should cover all types of negligence where a duty is owed by the relevant corporation in respect of the breach of which someone has been killed.
This is a small but important point in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said. InClause 2(1), it is clear that the duty need not be owed to the victim because Clause 2(1)(a) requires that the duty is owed to, "““employees or to other persons working””,"
and it is plainly contemplated that they may well have been injured or killed in respect of the event, whereas paragraphs (b) and (c) do not specify that the duty must be owed to anyone; there is no specification that it be owed to employees or the victim. Clause 2(1)(b) refers to a duty owed as occupier and Clause 2(1)(c) refers to a duty owed in connection with a long list of factual matters, where the duty could be owed in a variety of ways.
That brings me back to Amendment No. 32, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Turner, relating to duty owed under the common law of negligence or in respect of a statute. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that that must be covered, although the Government might consider whether new Schedule 1A, inserted by his Amendment No. 94, covers every relevant statute. It cannot matter if the duty of care in respect of which negligence has arisen is imposed on the defendant by contract, by fiduciary obligation or by virtue of office, which are the three possibilities thrown up by Amendment No. 32. We need a duty of care on whatever base in law. I take it that that is the thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, which I support.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c171GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:46:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369191
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369191
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369191