<P> One of the principal terms that accompanies the employment relationship is that the employer will provide a "safe system of work". As the industrial revolution developed, accidents from a hazardous working environment were a front line target for labour legislation, as a series of Factories Acts, from 1802, required minimum standards in workplace cleanliness, ventilation, fencing machinery, not to mention restrictions on child labour and limits to the working day . These Acts typically targeted particular kinds of workplaces, such as mines, or textile mills, before the more generalised approach took hold now seen in the Factories Act 1961 . That applies to any workplace where an article is made or changed, or animals are kept and slaughtered . The Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 made employers automatically liable for equipment with defects supplied by third parties . Because isolated employees lack the technical skill, time, training to litigate, such regulation's primary line of enforcement was through inspectors or agencies before matters went to court . Today the Health and Safety at Work etc . Act 1974, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, is the main law . The HSE can delegate enforcement to local authorities, whose inspectors have the power to investigate and require changes to workplace systems . In addition, HSWA 1974 section 2 foresees that employees will set up their own workplace committees, elected by the employees and with the power to codetermine health and safety matters with management . Spelling out the general duties found in HSWA 1974, are a set of health and safety regulations, which must also stay in line with the European - wide harmonised requirements of the Health and Safety Directive . </P> <P> While the modern scheme of legislation and regulation engenders a comprehensive approach to enforcement and worker participation for health and safety matters, the common law remains relevant for getting civil law compensation, and some limits on an employers' duties . Although the legislative provisions are not automatic, breach of a statutory duty is evidence that a civil law duty has been breached . Injured employees can generally claim for loss of income, and relatives or dependents recover small sums to reflect distress . In principle, employers are vicariously liable for all actions of people acting for them in the "course of employment" whenever their actions have a "close connection" to the job, and even if it breaks an employer's rules . Only if an employee is on a "frolic of his own", and the employer cannot be said to have placed him in a position to cause harm, will the employer have a defence . Under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, employers must take out insurance for all injury costs, and insurance companies are precluded by law and practice from suing their employees to recover costs unless there is fraud . However, until the mid-20th century there were a series of major limitations . First, until 1937, if an employee was injured by a co-worker, the doctrine of common employment, the employer could only be liable if it was shown they were personally liable by carelessness in selecting staff . The House of Lords changed this in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English, holding an employer had a non-delegable duty of care for all employees . Lord Wright held there were "fundamental obligations of a contract of employment...for which employers are absolutely responsible". The second old restriction was that, until 1891, volenti non fit injuria meant workers were assumed to voluntarily accept the dangers of their work by agreeing to their contracts of employment . Only if an employee callously ignores clear directions of the employer will he be taken to have voluntarily assumed the risk, like in ICI Ltd v Shatwell where an experience quarry shotfirer said he "could not be bothered" to wait 10 minutes before setting of a detonation, and blew up his brother . Third, even if a worker was slightly at fault, until 1945 such contributory negligence precluded the whole of the claim . Now the court will only reduce damages by the amount the employee contributed to their own injury . The fourth defence available to employers, which still exists, is ex turpi causa non oritur actio, that if the employee was engaged in any illegal activity they may not claim compensation for injuries . In Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd Mr Hewison concealed his epilepsy so that he could work offshore was technically guilty of illegally attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception under the Theft Act 1968 section 16 . After being struck in the head by a defective gangplank he suffered worse fits than before, but the Court of Appeal, by a majority, held his illegal act precluded any compensation . </P> <P> The common law of tort also remains particularly relevant for the type of liability an employer has where there is scientific uncertainty about the cause of an injury . In asbestos disease cases, a worker may have been employed with at a number of jobs where he was exposed to asbestos, but his injury cannot with certainty be traced to any one . Although he may be able to sue all of them, a number may have already gone insolvent . In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd the House of Lords held that if any employer had materially increased the risk of harm to the worker, they could would be jointly and severally liable and could be sued for the full sum, leaving it up to them to seek contribution from others and thus the risk of other businesses' insolvency . For a brief period, in Barker v Corus the House of Lords then decided that employers would only be liable on a proportionate basis, thus throwing the risk of employers' insolvency back onto workers . Immediately Parliament passed the Compensation Act 2006 section 3 to reverse the decision on its facts . It has also been held in Chandler v Cape plc, in 2011, that even though a subsidiary company is the direct employer of a worker, a parent company will owe a duty of care . Thus shareholders may not be able to hide behind the corporate veil to escape their obligations for the health and safety of the workforce . </P> <Table> <Tr> <Th_colspan="2"> <Ul> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> </Ul> Nuisance cases </Th> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Christie v Davey (1893) 1 Ch 316 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) AC 655 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Leakey v National Trust (1980) QB 485 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd (1993) QB 343 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Dennis v Ministry of Defence (2003) EWHC 793 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Marcic v Thames Water (2003) UKHL 66 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Ex 265 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Cambridge Water Ltd v E Counties Leather plc (1994) 2 AC 264 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) UKHL 61 </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> Coventry v Lawrence (2014) </Td> </Tr> <Tr> <Td_colspan="2"> see Nuisance in English law </Td> </Tr> </Table>

When does the law of torts apply to a particular case