LEGAL RESEARCH

Legal Research

Legal Research

Part A

Popeye v Spinach Tankers Ltd (The Nottinghamshire) [1989]

1-What were the material facts in the case?

Ans. In discussing whether the loss should lie where it falls, which was the general principle of the common law in this situation, or whether the loss should rest upon the employer.This may puzzle hon. Members who are not lawyers, because the loss we are talking about is, of course, personal injury, and, whatever the decision of the House or the orders of the courts, a personal injury must inevitably rest where it falls. Nothing we can enact in legislation and no order which any court can make can restore a hand which has been amputated, or breathe life into a dead husband or father. In this sense, what we are discussing is whether someone who inevitably has suffered from a misfortune, which possibly could not easily have been avoided, should claim that part of his burden is borne by someone else who had an interest in the operation which they were jointly undertaking, and whose decision led to the situation which caused the accident. It may be well worth reminding ourselves that what we are doing here is not suggesting that an employer should bear the whole of the burden of an unfortunate accident instead of the employee.

The second question which is relevant to ask before we apply the principle as rigidly as the hon. Member for Bath would like is who can more easily recover his loss from the real wrongdoer. The employer will almost certainly have a remedy under his contract and it he does not, he cannot complain, because it was he who made the contract. The employee, if he has any remedy, is likely to have it against only the manufacturer. In special circumstances, he may have it against someone else, but almost invariably it will be only against the manufacturer, if he can show that the defect arose from negligence by the manufacturer. But he has to trace the manufacturer.

2-Explain, in your own words, the legal issue(s) in the case.

Ans. To return to the argument, I believe it to be fair that accidental loss should fall upon those particularly within whose power it was to bring about that situation, or who might be a different decision have brought about a different situation, rather than upon someone who was simply swept along by a current over which he had no control.

3-Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation, presumptions and/or 'rules of language' did Lord Oliver employ in the case? Give reasons for your answer.

Ans. the principle that the loss should fall only upon those whose negligence brought it about, are applicable in this day and age, and if in addition the effect of the Bill is that, in ordering equipment, an employer is just a little more careful in choosing his supplier, just a little more insistent on safety aspects

4-To what aids to statutory interpretation did Lord Oliver refer? Your answer should indicate whether such aids are 'intrinsic' or ...