Home Politics & Debate
We're aware of several bugs/changes to the discussion boards. We're looking into them and will give an update as soon as we can. Thank you for bearing with us. :)

Second-hand smoke

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
In Law of Tort, would second hand smoke induced illness be classed as an offence?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ouch, a third thread targeted at smokers. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    In Law of Tort, would second hand smoke induced illness be classed as an offence?

    Tort would be a civil action, thereby making an "offence" non-applicable.

    Also the burden of proof is said to be on the complainant. That could prove (pun intended) a problem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tort can go parallel to criminal law. ( and it's still an offence, but instead of being a criminal offence, it's a tortuous offence)

    If you were working at the bar for ten years and ended up having cancer because of second hand smoke, would the said person be able to sue someone, possibly the employer for negligence?

    I only thought about it because of all the snoking threads :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    If you were working at the bar for ten years and ended up having cancer because of second hand smoke, would the said person be able to sue someone, possibly the employer for negligence?

    That`s a mighty big "if" that needs to be addressed first.

    If you managed it, I suspect you would be successful in your endeavour
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    If you were working at the bar for ten years and ended up having cancer because of second hand smoke, would the said person be able to sue someone, possibly the employer for negligence?

    But wouldn't you be aware of the risks before you took the job?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    But wouldn't you be aware of the risks before you took the job?

    Not necessarily...
    Is it in the contract? Was I asked if I had a history of cancer in my family?
    Did the landlord warn me about the dangers of second hand smoke?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah, now I see what you're saying.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    Not necessarily...
    Is it in the contract? Was I asked if I had a history of cancer in my family?
    Did the landlord warn me about the dangers of second hand smoke?
    should it need to be in the contract?

    it's common sense isn't it?

    if you know you have a family history of cancer and take a job in a smokey pub, thats your call
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote:
    should it need to be in the contract?

    it's common sense isn't it?

    It's not common sense, though, is it? Unless you think that all H&S legislation should be repealed.

    After all, if you can't cope with falling off a building because your employer uses substandard scaffolding and no safety lines, you could always get another job :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    If you were working at the bar for ten years and ended up having cancer because of second hand smoke, would the said person be able to sue someone, possibly the employer for negligence?

    Unless you could prove a quite strong link between the second hand smoke and the lung cancer I doubt it, its not like with asbestos or something.

    If however your ashma got worse after taking a job in a pub and you were forced to quit you would have a case because the pub didnt do enough to help you. Both the HSWA and COSHH apply in that case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It's not common sense, though, is it? Unless you think that all H&S legislation should be repealed.

    After all, if you can't cope with falling off a building because your employer uses substandard scaffolding and no safety lines, you could always get another job :rolleyes:
    it is common sense IMO, you know if you go to work in a bar, you're gonna be working in a smokey atmosphere

    and i think the example you gave is slightly different

    providing safety lines/equiptment is a legal obligation is it not?

    providing you with a smoke free bar isn't, or is it? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote:
    providing safety lines/equiptment is a legal obligation is it not?

    providing you with a smoke free bar isn't, or is it? :confused:

    Yes, safety lines etc. come under legislation.

    No, providing a smoke free bar isnt a legal obligation, but looking after your workers is, so you could argue that any harm done to them by the smoke is the fault of the employer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Yes, safety lines etc. come under legislation.

    No, providing a smoke free bar isnt a legal obligation, but looking after your workers is, so you could argue that any harm done to them by the smoke is the fault of the employer.
    fair enough, i undertand where you'e coming from

    BUT, i stand by my original point that most people (if not ALL) know the risks of being in contact with smoke, and if they choose to take a job in such a place, there should be no justification in them suing the employer :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote:
    BUT, i stand by my original point that most people (if not ALL) know the risks of being in contact with smoke, and if they choose to take a job in such a place, there should be no justification in them suing the employee :thumb:

    That's far from how the law is written, people cant take the risk onto themselves, it is the legal obligation (and a good one at that) of the employer to look after the employee.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    That's far from how the law is written, people cant take the risk onto themselves, it is the legal obligation (and a good one at that) of the employer to look after the employee.
    yeah i get that, and aint disputing it

    i just think that if you need your employer to put in your contract that second hand smoke may damage your health, you're a bit of a numpty :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote:
    yeah i get that, and aint disputing it

    i just think that if you need your employer to put in your contract that second hand smoke may damage your health, you're a bit of a numpty :lol:

    Nah, it's about mentioning explicit risks so that the person cannot argue at a later date that they weren't informed. It's no different to other COSHH or potentially dangerous equipment/workplace issues really.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Shall we start suing people driving 4x4s for killing us too? Just like smoking, driving a Ranger Rover is often unecessary.

    Hey... I should try this.:chin: Motivation to quite smoking, heheheh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Shall we start suing people driving 4x4s for killing us too? Just like smoking, driving a Ranger Rover is often unecessary.

    My mother drives a Range Rover, a super-charged one. ;)

    I don't think you would include the risk in the contract to inform the employee, more because of legal purposes. Whether they are informed or not, it is necessary for the employer to include it to avoid putting himself in unecessary shit. These regulations are necessary for the reason that it is important that the employers have a legislated obligation to ensure the employees' welfare.

    If we were to exclude these rules simply because of everyone's alleged common sense, many of the laws wouldn't be here today. We need to make these things formal matters for the employers. Ultimately having this rule all the employers are forced to abide by it.

    and here's a shocker for you: there are pretty many 'numptys' out there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if you start protecting bar staff from working in a non air-polluted environment, why discriminate against the motorway maintenence folks who have to inhale exhaust fumes for 8 hours a day or firefighters who inhale smoke a lot of the time? Once you start with all this crap, it's very easy to get carried away. Granted, people deserve the right to work in a safe environment, but how safe is permissable? We all work (or at least those who aren't layabout students like me) in dangerous environments to one degree or another so where should the line be drawn?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if you start protecting bar staff from working in a non air-polluted environment, why discriminate against the motorway maintenence folks who have to inhale exhaust fumes for 8 hours a day or firefighters who inhale smoke a lot of the time? Once you start with all this crap, it's very easy to get carried away. Granted, people deserve the right to work in a safe environment, but how safe is permissable? We all work (or at least those who aren't layabout students like me) in dangerous environments to one degree or another so where should the line be drawn?

    I think the legal term is "reasonably foreseeable".
Sign In or Register to comment.