Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Bux v Slough Metals

346 words (1 pages) Case Summary

17th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Bux v Slough Metals [1973] 1 WLR 1358

Employer’s liability; contributory negligence; whether compliance with statutory duty excludes common law duty of care.


Mr Bux was employed by the defendant as a die-caster. This involved him lifting molten metal from a furnace with a ladle and pouring it into a die. During training and for the first two months of his employment, his employer failed to provide goggles. Goggles were then supplied but Mr Bux found they misted up, so he told his supervisor they were useless and ceased to use them. He was not encouraged to use the goggles and suffered severe eye injuries when molten metal splashed from the furnace. He sought damages for breach of Regulation 13(1)(c) Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 and for breach of the common law duty to ensure goggles were worn.


The employer was under a duty to provide goggles under Regulation 13(1)(c) of the 1962 Regulations and also under a duty under common law to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees in the workplace. The employer asserted there was no breach of statutory duty because goggles were provided, and the satisfaction of their statutory obligations necessarily absolved them of any liabilities at common law. They also claimed Mr Bux was in breach of Regulation 13(4) of the 1962 Regulations for failing to wear the goggles provided.


Mr Bux was awarded damages with a reduction of 40% for contributory negligence. The employer had discharged their statutory duty by providing goggles. Compliance with statutory duties does not abrogate the ordinary common law duty of care owed to an employee to take reasonable steps to ensure safety equipment is worn. Mr Bux had breached the 1962 Regulations by failing to wear the goggles and his damages were, therefore, reduced by 40%.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles