The absence of Construction (design and management) regulations 2007; part IV or similar enactment to address the welfare of employees and impose certain obligations on the contractor resulted in the loss of many lives which otherwise could have been saved. The dam claimed the lives of an estimated 112 people. However, only 96 of them are reported to have died. The toll does not include those whose death was caused as a result of heat, heart stroke, etc. (www.wikipedia.org).
The construction (Design and Management) regulations 2007; part IV imposes obligations on the part of the constructor pertaining to the health and safety of employees in construction sites. In the Hoover dam case, safety measures were not taken to ensure the safety of the people working at the site. Sec.25 (10) of the act provides that, “every contractor carrying out construction work shall comply with the requirements of regulations 26-44 in so far as they affect him or any person carrying out construction work under his control or relate to matters within his control”.
Sec.30 (1) of the Construction (Design and Management) regulations 2007 further provides that “so far as is reasonably practicable, explosives shall be stored, transported and used safely and securely” (office of public sector, UK) subclause (2) of the same section further goes to say “without prejudice to Para (1), an explosive charge shall be used or fired only if suitable and sufficient steps have been taken to ensure that no person is exposed to risk of injury from the explosion or from projected or flying material caused thereby” (ibid). This section protects the workers from any danger they might be exposed to while undergoing construction work. Most workers in the Hoover dam died as a result of carbon monoxide. This sub-section imposes responsibility on the constructor or his agent to ensure that no such explosives or emissions are at the site while construction takes place.
Further sec.35 provides that the contractor must take every case possible to prevent any act of drowning from taking place during the course of construction. The section further stipulates that the contractor must as far as is practicable minimize such risk. This was not adhered to in Hoover dam construction. It is known that the first person to die in Hoover dam construction J.G. Tierney, a surveyor died as a result of drowning. Proper care was not availed in order to ensure his safety even after when the contractor was aware of the danger at the site.
The civil attempt by workers to sue the company using civil law may not yield the proper outcome i.e. justice. Civil law is wide enough to cover specific provisions which could impose liability on the part of the contractor. However, this was the only law available at that time to rely on. The legal principle under civil relied on here was a strict liability. This rule has been best illustrated in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1886) LR 3HL 330, where Blackburn J. held that “the rule of law is that the person who for is on purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril, and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage, which is the natural consequence of its escape (ibid). The claimants (workers) of the Hoover dam case relied on his principle. However, the principle is scanty enough to meet the outcome (justice).
In their case, the evidence presented here was the emission of carbon monoxide substance which killed many workers even though it was disputed by the contractor. In their defense, they submitted that the cause of several deaths as a result of pneumonia and not carbon monoxide as claimed by claimants. Even though pneumonia would have been the cause, still the contractor had to be held liable since he failed to provide for safety at the site, by ensuring temperature and weather protection were adequately provided for. Sec 43 (1) of the Act provides that, “suitable and sufficient steps shall be taken to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that during working hours the temperature at any place of work indoors is reasonable having regard to the purpose for which that place is used”. This section imposed a duty on the contractor to ensure that the lives of workers are not put in danger arising from adverse weather conditions at the site. Further evidence was given by one claimant; Edkraus who said that due to poisoning substances at the site he suffered impotence. The outcome of the case was no compensation was made to claimants. Judgment was harsh since it didn’t reflect the proper administration of justice. However, the deficiencies were due to a lack of proper statute protecting the rights of workers of this nature.
The two health and safety regulations current in English law that could have saved the situation in the USA if they were enacted there are; Health and safety at work Act 1974 and Workplace (Health, Safety, and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The latter Act would have provided for proper equipment, devices, and system (Sec. (1). The former Act imposes specific duties and obligations of employers at the site in ensuring that the welfare of employees is adequately addressed and their working conditions are proper. These two statutes would have saved the situation.
The provisions of inspectors have made the employers improve the place of work for their employees by ensuring that there is enough space, light, work equipment, and devices at the workplace. Failure to provide this imposes criminal liability on the employer. These arrangements have been effective because of the implications that come with the violation of this provision. Employers can be sent to jail and also a fine be imposed on them. These liabilities are heavy on employers who have no other alternative except to follow what the law stipulates. The inspectors work is to inspect the place of work and submit the report to relevant authorities. Their report is important because it addresses the welfare of employees in terms of health and safety.
Bibliography
Partington, M. 2008, An introduction to the English legal system, Oxford University Press. Web.