Baker v Quantum Clothing Group [2011] UKSC 17

Facts

• The claimants were former employees of Quantum Clothing Group who suffered noise-induced hearing loss while working in the textile industry.
• Their employment covered several decades during which awareness and preventive measures for noise-induced hearing loss advanced.
• The period in question for liability spanned from 1963 to the early 1990s.
• The case focused on employer duties in light of evolving knowledge about occupational noise hazards.

Issues

1. Whether the standard of care owed by employers in the 1970s and 1980s was determined by the scientific understanding of noise-induced hearing loss at the time.
2. To what extent following the 1972 Code of Practice for Noise constituted compliance with the duty of care.
3. Whether employers were liable for noise-induced hearing loss arising from risks that were or should have been reasonably foreseeable during the relevant period.
4. What steps were required of employers to discharge their duty to protect employees given the state of knowledge at the time.

Decision

• The Supreme Court affirmed that the standard of care is not fixed and evolves as scientific and technical knowledge progresses.
• The 1972 Code of Practice for Noise, though not legally binding, evidenced generally accepted good practice; compliance with it could indicate fulfillment of the duty of care, but did not automatically absolve liability.
• Employer liability depended on risks reasonably foreseeable at the relevant time.
• Employers were required to take steps that were reasonably practicable based on then-current knowledge, such as noise monitoring, provision of hearing protection, and education.
• The court emphasized consideration of historical context and knowledge available during the period of alleged harm.

Legal Principles

• The standard of care in negligence is flexible and adjusts as knowledge and technology develop.
• Employers have a duty to stay informed of developing scientific and technical knowledge about workplace risks.
• Compliance with a Code of Practice may serve as evidence but is not definitive of discharging duty of care.
• Liability for occupational injury depends on whether the risk was reasonably foreseeable and what was reasonably practicable at the time.
• Courts must consider the historical context in assessing liability for occupational diseases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Baker v Quantum Clothing Group clarified that the duty of care owed by employers is dynamic, requiring adaptation as workplace risk knowledge advances. Employers must take reasonably practicable steps to address foreseeable risks according to the state of scientific understanding at the relevant time, and compliance with prevailing codes of practice, while important, is not conclusive of fulfilling their common law obligations.