Question
explain in simpler terms The cost of prevention
The employer is not expected to do the impossible. The duty as already stated is limited to
foreseeability and reasonableness. It does not extend to cases where the cost of prevention
would far outweigh the benefit of safety measures. Thus in Latimer v AEC40 the employer put
saw dust in many places to make flooded work places safe. An employee who suffered injury
failed in an action for damages when the court held that the employer had put in place
sufficient controls to prevent injury and therefore was not liable. The court did not expect the
employer to close his factory
The employer is not expected to do the impossible. The duty as already stated is limited to
foreseeability and reasonableness. It does not extend to cases where the cost of prevention
would far outweigh the benefit of safety measures. Thus in Latimer v AEC40 the employer put
saw dust in many places to make flooded work places safe. An employee who suffered injury
failed in an action for damages when the court held that the employer had put in place
sufficient controls to prevent injury and therefore was not liable. The court did not expect the
employer to close his factory
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The cost of prevention means that employers are expected to take reasonable steps to keep their workers safe, but they are not required to do everything possible, especially if it would be too costly. For example, in the case of **Latimer v AEC**, an employer took action to make a factory safer by putting sawdust in areas where there was flooding. When an employee got hurt, they tried to sue the employer for damages. However, the court decided that the employer had done enough to prevent injuries and did not have to shut down the factory. The court found that the employer's efforts were reasonable given the circumstances, and they were not responsible for the employee's injury.