Jonathan Swift on Style - Keeping It Simple

Jonathan Swift on Style - Keeping It Simple Other writers agree: that wise guy of English prose, Jonathan Swift, knew a thing or two about good style: Swifts style is, in its line, perfect; the manner is a complete expression of the matter, the terms appropriate, and the artifice concealed. It is simplicity in the true sense of the word.(Samuel Coleridge, Lecture on Style, 1818)No better style in English prose was ever written, or can be.(William Dean Howells, Preface, Gullivers Travels, 1913)Swift, the greatest writer of English prose, and the greatest man who has ever written great English prose.  (T.S. Eliot, The Varieties of Metaphysical Poetry, 1926) So when the author of Gullivers Travels and A Modest Proposal offers some free advice on writing, we probably ought to pay attention. Lets start with his famous definition of style as proper words in proper places. Short and sweet. But then, we might ask, whos to say whats proper? And just what does Swifts maxim really mean? To find out, lets return to the source. Swifts cryptic definition of style appears in the essay Letter to a Young Gentleman Lately Entered Into Holy Orders (1721). There he identifies clarity, directness, and freshness of expression as the chief qualities of a proper style: And truly, as they say a man is known by his company, so it should seem that a mans company may be known by his means of expressing himself, either in public assemblies or private conversations.It would be endless to run over the several defects of style among us. I shall therefore say nothing of the mean and paltry (which are usually attended by the fustian), much less of the slovenly or indecent. Two things I will just warn you against: the first is, the frequency of flat unnecessary epithets; and the other is, the folly of using old threadbare phrases, which will often make you go out of your way to find and apply them, are nauseous to rational hearers, and will seldom express your meaning as well as your own natural words.Although, as I have already observed, our English tongue is too little cultivated in this kingdom, yet the faults are, nine in ten, owing to affectation, and not to the want of understanding. When a mans thoughts are clear, the properest words will generally off er themselves first, and his own judgment will direct him in what order to place them so as they may be best understood. Where men err against this method, it is usually on purpose, and to show their learning, their oratory, their politeness, or their knowledge of the world. In short, that simplicity without which no human performance can arrive to any great perfection is nowhere more eminently useful than in this. Always think of your audience, Swift advises, and dont baffle them with obscure terms and hard words. Lawyers, surgeons, clergy, and especially academics should avoid using jargon when communicating with outsiders. I know not how it comes to pass, he says, that professors in most arts and sciences are generally the worst qualified to explain their meaning to those who are not of their tribe. One of the wittiest writers in the English language, Swift understood that his gift was rare: I cannot forbear warning you, in the most earnest manner, against endeavoring at wit in your sermons, because by the strictest computation it is very near a million to one that you have none; and because too many of your calling have consequently made themselves everlastingly ridiculous by attempting it. In other words, dont try to be a joker if you cant tell a joke. And at all times, keep it simple. Sound advice, right? But keeping it simple- putting proper words in proper places- is a lot harder than it sounds. As Sir Walter Scott once said, Swifts style seems so simple that one would think any child might write as he does, and yet if we try we find to our despair that it is impossible (quoted in The Cambridge History of English and American Literature).

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Quotes

'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' Quotes Mark Twains novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), is the famous tale of Huckleberry Finn, who journeys down the Mississippi River with an escaped slave, Jim. The wit and wisdom of Mark Twain shines through in this novel. Here are a few famous quotations from the novel: There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth. The average man dont like trouble and danger. The pitifulest thing out is a mob; thats what an army isa mob; they dont fight with courage thats born in them, but with courage thats borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any MAN at the head of it is BENEATH pitifulness. Music is a good thing; and after all that soul-butter and hogwash I never see it freshen up things so, and sound so honest and bully. All I say is, kings is kings, and you got to make allowances. Take them all around, theyre a mighty ornery lot. Its the way theyre raised. Its lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened. We said there warnt no home like a raft, after all. Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft dont. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft. Pray for me! I reckoned if she knowed me shed take a job that was more nearer her size. But I bet she done it, just the sameshe was just that kind. She had the grit to pray for Judus if she took the notionthere warnt no back-down to her, I judge. I haint ever seen her since that time that I see her go out of that door; no, I haint ever seen her since, but I reckon Ive thought of her a many and a many a million times, and of her saying she would pray for me; and if ever Id a thought it would do any good for me to pray for HER, blamed if I wouldnt a done it or bust. Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something thats on its mind and cant make itself understood, and so cant rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.

Money Laundering Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Money Laundering - Essay Example Money represents the lifeblood of a criminal or a terrorist organisation and it is for this reason that most countries and global institutions have an interest in detecting and preventing money laundering2. Researchers suggest that the estimated aggregate funds processed by money laundering activities from around the world range from US$ 590 billion to US$ 1.5 trillion3. However, approaches to regulation, implementation and enforcement of anti-money laundering legislation differ despite a consensus for global cooperation and affect the anti-money laundering efforts as nations try to balance regulation, cost of enforcement and rights4 . The major financial centres from around the world have presented a need for greatest vigilance and effort directed towards prevention and prosecution of those involved in money laundering because global flows of dirty money are either generated in affluent economies or flow through these centres. Thus, it makes sense to try to examine the nature, empha sis and implementation of the anti-money laundering regulation and efforts in London and the UK within a broader regional and global context involving other major financial centres from around the world. It is with the previously mentioned objectives of interest to all those with an interest in the topic of discussion that this dissertation attempts to examine critically the prevailing anti-money laundering regime in the UK. To try to examine the anti-money laundering approach in the United Kingdom from the perspectives of domestic concerns, rights, expenses incurred for enforcement and development of European and international law and regulation. To present an examination of the processes for money laundering, their evolution and the manner in which the United Kingdom anti-money laundering regime acts to effectively prevent and deter money laundering. To try to present suggestions for improvements in effectiveness of the anti-money laundering regime in the United Kingdom,

Critical Assessment of a published qualitative research article Essay

Critical Assessment of a published qualitative research article - Essay Example The realities in Morgan’s stories are uncommon because what he writes is also common for students who have little or no English background with the English language. The only difference is the style through, which they approach their realities. In the case study, it is clear that the teachers are in denial to accept the validity of the student’s realities and experiences and existence of previous learning experiences, whether home based or school based. To understand the concept of the teacher’s refusal to accept the student’s reality, the author explores the English learning experience of two Bangladeshi children who attend mainstream English lessons. The study was conducted at an inner city school because it was public and had multicultural policy settings. The first study indicated that the teachers’ approach to Abdul made him weak, in that, instead of bilingualism being beneficial to him; it became a challenge because his teacher made it difficult to accept his realities. The first study was supported by the Cummins’ theory of Common Underlying Proficiency. The second study showed that the teacher can make the student learn better if they understand and accept their realities. â€Å" It was noticed that in subsequent work an= number of changes occurred to the student’s writing† (Hammersley & Woods, 2014, 187). In the case of Mashud, he learnt bilingualism fast, because his teacher was willing to accept his reality and help him correct grammar and make the relevant changes in his composition. The study concludes with the reflections of Ms. Montgomery, where it is seen that although she does not understand the cultural diversity of the student, it does not hinder her from dealing with the realities of his student. â€Å"These doubts led Ms Montgomery to think carefully on broad issues related to cultural reproduction† (Hammersley & Woods, 2014, 188). By so doing, she achieves to hasten a

Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Networking Essay Example for Free

Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Networking Essay  « Vocabulary and Grammar – An Elementary lesson for CELTA trainees at CELT Athens What steps are part of the process of designing a syllabus? What knowledge skills do teachers need?  » The Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Networks for Language Teachers Does this look familiar To –ing or not to –ing†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦that is today’s question! One of my students asked me last month why we use the –ing form for blogging, networking, computing†¦..Good question! My answer? Because technology is constantly changing and plus usually these actions are constant, happen often, plus they are amusing but can be annoying – so we use the present continuous form†¦. On Wednesday 18 January, #ELTchatters wished each other a Happy New Year and got their teeth into a very stimulating chat. As language teachers, do we find these social networking platforms and services amusing or annoying Our students are already using a wide-range of social network sites and teachers are beginning to familiarize themselves with such sites, to keep up with technology but more importantly, to discuss and exchange ideas and develop as teachers. We read and write blogs, visit forums, develop Nings and Wikis, all of which are constantly changing and being updated. The #ELTchat itself is proof of this†¦.it’s fast, furious, fun and educational! We have joined ther World of Technology, for good or for bad? By the way, did you know that if Facebook was a country, it would be the third largest country in the world!!! So in the ELT world, here are the main themes from the discussion. Advantages: * There will be more pro chatters tonight as most members are keen SN users. * #ELTCHAT is one of the major advantages of SNs for teachers. * SNs have radically changed teachers’ lives. We will never feel alone again. * Facebook has become a professionally developing site rather than just a social network. * SN has revolutionized the way we think and opened wider perspectives. * SNs are global and 24/7. * SNs should be harnessed by 21 century teachers with enthusiasm. * Use Facebook for personal contacts and Google+ for PD. * SNs are an extension of staffroom chats with links, banter and discussions. ‘Virtual staffroom†. * #ELTchat is great as it is an ‘outer of class collaboration’ discussion, as few teachers in the workplace know how to collaborate. * SNs create friends which lead to face to face meetings. * Share worksheets/mind maps for students, time-saving. * Twitter tags can inform parents’ of students’ progress. * Non-native teachers are also exposed to real language in the modern world. * SNs, like Twitter and #ELTchat are energizing! Plus, through #ElTchat, you find more people to follow! So, start following!!! Disadvantages: * All SNs are time-consuming. * Some teachers find SNs too daunting to tackle. * SNs can become addictive. They can take over your life, leaving little time for family and friends. Knowing when to stop is crucial – try to switch off! * Replication of themes from one SN to another is annoying. * Students become obsessed in finding their teachers on FB and intrude in teachers’private lives. * Privacy issues with FB AND Twitter – do not accept people you don’t know or protected accounts on Twitter. * Tweetdeck often has technical problems. Mentioned sites, platforms and services worth checking out: * http://www.edmod Secure Social Networking for Teachers * http://moodle.org/Moodle is a Course Management System (CMS), also known as a Learning Management System (LMS) or a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). It is a Free web application that educators can use to create effective online learning sites * http://www.blackboard.com/ Blackboard helps clients enrich all aspects of the education experience by engaging and assessing learners, making their daily lives more convenient and †¦ * http://www.collaborizeclassroom.com/ is a free online collaborative education platform that allows students and teachers to transcend the boundaries of their physical classroom to engage in an online collaborative  learning environment. * http://bloggerindraft.blogspot.com/2011/08/introducing-google-scribe-in-blogger.html-an aid to write your blog! * http://aplanet-project.org/ Autonomous Personal Learning Networks For Teachers * http://www.scoop.it/t/interactive-teaching-and-learningExploration of engaging learning spaces and technologies that suppo rt them. * http://www.evernote.com/ Remember everything! * http://www.diigo.com/ To collect, highlight and remember those bookmarks! The chat went on to discuss the issue of coping with lack of time and organizing information and links shared. This lead to a variety of suggestions for bookmarking and who prefers Twitter, FB, Google+. Everyone had their own opinion! A blog challenge was proposed: @esolcourses: Best method for organizing #ELTchat bookmarks! Choose one and demo! As ever, there were some great links shared: * http://t.cohttp://evasimkesyan.edublogs.org/2012/01/18/evo-digitalstorytelling4kids-and-the-tool-of-the-week//JBbayIuc * http://learningfundamentals.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Focus.jpg How to focus in times of distraction. Excellent mind map presentation! * http://cybraryman.com/facebook.html All you need to know about SN s and your students. * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8142721/Social-networking-teachers-blame-Facebook-and-Twitter-for-pupils-poor-grades.html * http://educationland.wordpress.com/my-worksheets/http://educationland.wordpress.com/worksheets/http:/www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Land/221436857914023http:/t.co/gzX8zGIR Share worksheet and ideas! That’s the summary folks! I would like to add that I didn’t mention specific names on the summary as so many people commented on this chat, so there is something from everyone!! Thanks for another energy-boosting, informative chat! Happy Social Networking!!!

Less Could be More in Anna Karenina :: Tolstoy Anna Karenina Essays

Less Could be More in Anna Karenina    Anna Karenina was well-written, with a good plot, and valuable themes. But it fell short in each of these categories, because Tolstoy simply tried to do too much. The language was beautiful but, at times, far too descriptive. The plot was also well written, but tedious and hard to follow in many parts of the book. And the Themes were great and important, but they were many, and at times, not appropriate for this book. The book was great, but it could have said much more, and been better, if Tolstoy had said a little less.    The language in Anna Karenina was wonderful, although graphic and too descriptive in much of the book. Tolstoy was a great writer, and that is why this book is a classic. However, he should have made choices about what to emphasize, and what not to. Tolstoy had a great writing style. He used some wonderful techniques and literary devices in his writing to make is books so great. One example of this is how he often times placed characters in his books that mirrored himself, as is true with Anna Karenina. While this tool can be effective, in Anna Karenina it was mostly awkward. This character seemed to be somewhat misplaced, and unimportant. He also used a good deal of foreshadowing to give his books a more unique style. In one instance during Anna Karenina, Anna arrives at the train station to find that a man has been run-over by the train, which greatly foreshadows her own poignant suicide in part seven of the book. Tolstoy's language is compelling and fluid. He paints a clear and accurate picture in the reader's mind of all the details throughout the book. But his strength can very much be his weakness, because in trying to be so thorough and compelling, he over-analyzed and over-described many parts of the book.    The themes of this book were many. Some were well developed and appropriate to the story, but others seemed unnecessary. The books major themes were marriage and unhappiness, while the book also deals with depression, and making choices. This book follows several marriages and families, and these themes proved themselves to be very important and essential in Anna Karenina.

Ethics Scholarship Essay Essay

One ethical issue to which I became aware of while in college mainly involved cases illegal drugs, bribery, and cheating. Although there is an existing law against illegal drugs and most schools and universities are very stringent in imposing penalties for illegal activities and other things that are criminal in nature, sadly there are still some students who find ways to break those rules, especially outside the campus. While I am not the one involved in these illegal activities, I felt that I had a moral obligation because two of my classmates were involved. These classmates of mine were actually good people, but unfortunately, they ended up with the wrong company. It took place not very long ago, during a house party held by one of the rich students in the university. This certain student, whom I personally know, constantly held parties in his/her lavish house. My two classmates were not invited because the host of the party didn’t like their introvert nature. They were very shy, had very little friends, and were only interested in playing video games and the like. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned above, they were people who possessed values. The problem is they just lacked social skills. One day in class, I noticed that they were talking to a guy who was a notorious rule breaker in the university and was one of the friend of the rich person mentioned earlier. Later, I found out that they were invited to one of the parties held by the rich person and they were both very excited to go as it was their first time to have the change to mingle with a lot of people. On the night of the party, I was to see them talking to a couple of girls and boys. Although I do not wish to judge them, I was a bit confused because, as mentioned above, they were very shy and were not the type of people who would approach someone for a casual conversation. I felt happy for my two classmates but I noticed that certain things about them started to change in the succeeding months. There were instances that they were absent from class, which was something they never did, and there were also times that they were asleep during a lecture or an exam. After some time, I spoke with one of the two and found out that the reason behind their unusual behavior was because of illegal drugs. This person further revealed that they were invited to the rich student’s party on the condition that they would do the assignments of a group of people who were close to of him/her (rich student). This classmate of mine also told me that they were doing drugs because it was considered â€Å"cool† among their new circle of friends. However, the main problem was that both these classmates of mine were nearly failing a lot of their subjects due to their absences and neglect. Because I was concerned for them, I sought the help of fellow students who were also concerned and together we notified the university officials on condition of anonymity. Although it was the right thing to do, I had an ethical dilemma because as a result of my actions, my two classmates were indefinitely suspended from school and were taken to a rehabilitation facility. I was very bothered at first because in a way, I cost them a lot by revealing their secret illegal activities. But after several months, I realized that it was the only thing to do because I didn’t want their future to be ruined by drugs. Basically, this event has impacted me in such a way that I carefully choose whom I associate with. Although I have a lot of friends, I only trust people whom I am sure would not give in to negative influences and to peer-pressure from the wrong ground. It also made me more vigilant and more careful of people who are trying to be nice to me but actually have ulterior motives. On the business perspective, it made me more cautious in dealing with alleged â€Å"easy money† gimmicks and deals which are perpetrated by people who have questionable backgrounds. In short, it made me wiser and clever in terms of business dealings because now I am more aware of the capabilities of certain people who only claim to offer good deals but in truth, do not offer anything of value at all.

Employment Torts: Information Guide

September 16, 2006 Worksheet 1 EMPLOYMENT TORTS Employer’s Liability 1. Introduction The basis of the liability of an employer for negligence in respect of injury suffered by his employee during the course of the employee’s work is twofold: 1. He may be liable for breach of the personal duty of care which he owes to each employee; 2. He may be vicariously liable for breach by one employee of the duty of care which that employee owes to his fellow employees. The action against the employer for damages by the employee who suffers personal injury on the job is only one of the methods available for compensation for workplace accidents. . Common Law Duties of the Employer There are essentially implied terms of the contract of employment – ‘It is quite clear that the contract between employer and employed, involves on the part of the former the duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to maintain them in a proper condition, and so to carry on his operations as not to subject those employed by him to unnecessary risk†¦Ã¢â‚¬  per Lord Herschell in Smith v. Baker This was later refined in Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co v. English and in Davie v.New Merton Board Mills Ltd. The duty is now regarded as four-fold and is non-delegable. In sum, the employer must take reasonable care to provide: 1. A competent staff of workers; 2. Adequate plant and equipment; 3. A safe system of working; and 4. A safe place of work. The common law duty of an employer to his employees was enunciated in Davie v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1959] 1 All ER 346 as a duty to take reasonable care for their safety i. e. you owe an employee a duty of care not to cause them damage.In that case, in 1946 an old-established firm of toolmakers made a drift (a tool consisting of a tapered bar of steel about one foot long) which had a latent defect, viz, excessive hardness of the steel due to negligent heat treatment. In July, 1946, the manufacturers sold t he drift to B & Co Ltd reputable suppliers of tools of this kind, from whom, in the same month, the employers of D bought at a reasonable price a batch of drifts, including this tool. The defect in the drift was not discoverable on inspection and no intermediate examination by the employers between the times of its manufacture and of its use was reasonably to be expected.Between July, 1946, and March, 1953, the drift was seldom, if ever, used, but in March, 1953, D used it in the course of his employment as a maintenance fitter. Owing to the defect in its manufacture, a piece flew off the drift when it was struck with a hammer by D in the course of using it, and destroyed the sight of his left eye. There was no negligence in the employers’ system of maintenance and inspection and the accident was solely due to the defect in the drift.HELD: -The employers were not liable to D for the injury caused to him by the defective drift, because they had fulfilled their duty to him as t heir servant, namely, a duty to take reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and were not responsible for the negligence of the manufacturers, who had no contractual relationship with the employers and in manufacturing the tool were not acting as persons (whether servants, agents or independent contractors) to whom the employers had delegated the performance of any duty that it was for the employers to perform.Per Lord Tucker: in my view, it would have made no difference if the drift had been purchased [by the employers] direct from the manufacturers. An employer may, however, render himself liable to his servant for injury suffered by him by reason of a faulty specification prepared by the employer for the manufacturer, or where the manufactured article may require inspection or test after delivery. The duty is not an absolute one and can be discharged by the exercise of due are and skill, which is a matter to be determined by a consideration of all the circumstances of the p articular case. It is well established that every employer has a duty at common law to provide: 1. A competent staff of men; 2. Adequate plant and equipment; 3. A safe system of working, with effective supervision; and 4. A safe place of work. Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English [1937] 3 All ER 628In an action by a miner against his employers for damages for personal injury alleged to be due to the negligence of the employers in that they had failed to provide a reasonably safe system of working the colliery, questions were raised (1) whether the employers were liable at common law for a defective system of working negligently provided or permitted to be carried on by a servant to whom the duty of regulating the system of working had been delegated by the employers, the employers' board of directors being unaware of the defect, and (2) if they were liable, whether the employers were relieved of their liability in view of the prohibition contained in the Coal Mines Act 1911, s2(4), against the owner of a mine taking any part in the technical management of the mine unless he is qualified to be a manager.HELD: – It was held by the House of Lords that (1) the employers were not absolved from their duty to take due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working by the appointment of a competent person to perform that duty. Although the employers might, and in some events were bound to, appoint someone as their agent in the discharge of their duty, the employers remained responsible. (2) the doctrine of common employment does not apply where it is proved that a defective system of working has been provided. To provide a proper system of working is a paramount duty, and, if it is delegated by a master to another, the master still remains liable.Lord Wright stated (at p644A) that the whole course of authority consistently recognises a duty which rests on the employer, and which is personal to the employer, to take reasonable care for the safety o f his workmen, whether the employer be an individual, a firm, or a company, and whether or not the employer takes any share in the conduct of the operations (at p644A). The obligation is threefold, â€Å"the provision of a competent staff of men, adequate material, and a proper system and effective supervision† (at p640C). 1. COMPETENT STAFF OF WORKERS An employer will be in breach of this duty if he engages a workman who has had insufficient training or experience for a particular job and, as a result of that workman’s incompetence, another employee is injured.Competence here usually relates to qualifications, training and experience. It may also include the disposition of the employee. Ifill v. Rayside Concrete Workers Ltd (1981) 16 Barb. LR The plaintiff and J were employed by the defendants as labourers. They were both known by the defendants to have a propensity for ‘skylarking’ at work, and had been warned on at least two occasions not to do so. One day, J picked the plaintiff up and cradled him in his arms, saying he was ‘light as a baby’ and singing ‘Rock-a-bye-baby’. As J carried the plaintiff forward, he tripped over a pipeline and both J and the plaintiff fell into a cement mixer, which was only partly covered, both of them sustaining injuries.The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for: (a) breach of statutory duty; and (b) negligence at common law. HELD: -(a) the cement mixer was a ‘dangerous part of machinery’ within what was then s 10(1) of the Factories Act, Cap 347, and the defendants were in breach of their absolute statutory duty to fence it securely; (b) the defendants were in breach of their duty at common law not to expose the plaintiff to risks of danger emanating from indisciplined fellow employees, and were liable in negligence; (c) the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and his damages would be reduced by 50%. Douglas CJ said: †¦it is obv ious that the plaintiff and the second defendant each had a marked propensity for skylarking.They persisted in it, in spite of warnings†¦in my view, mere warnings were totally inadequate for such serious cases of indiscipline†¦Rayside was negligent in exposing its employees, including the plaintiff, to the risk of injury from the second defendant’s skylarking†¦the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in participating in the skylarking activity which caused his injury. â€Å"†¦upon principle it seems to me that if, in fact, a fellow workman is not merely incompetent but, by his habitual conduct, is likely to prove a source of danger to his fellow employees, a duty lies†¦on the employers to remove that source of danger†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Hudson v. Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd [1957] 2 QB 348 The defendants had had in their employ, for a period of almost four years, a man given to horseplay and skylarking. He had been reprimanded on many occasions by the for eman, seemingly without any result.In the end, while indulging in skylarking, he tripped and injured the plaintiff, a fellow employee who sued his employer for failing to take reasonable care for his safety. HELD: -Straetfield J said: This is an unusual case, because the particular form of lack of care by the employers alleged is that they failed to maintain discipline and to take proper steps to put an end to this skylarking, which might lead to injury at some time in the future†¦the matter is covered not by authority so much as principle. It is the duty of employers, for the safety of employees, to have reasonably safe plant and machinery. It is their duty to have premises which are similarly reasonably safe.It is their duty to have a reasonably safe system of work. It is their duty to employ reasonably competent fellow workmen†¦it seems to me that if, in fact, a fellow workman is not merely incompetent but, by his habitual conduct, is likely to prove a source of danger to his fellow employees, a duty lies fairly and squarely on the employers to remove that source of danger. Smith v. Crossley Bros Ltd (1951) 95 SJ 655 Injury was done to the plaintiff, a 16 year old apprentice, by inserting in him, in horseplay, compressed air. At first instance, it was held that the employers had not exercised adequate supervision over the apprentices and that lack of supervision constituted negligence.HELD: -on appeal, it was held that the evidence disclosed no negligence on the part of the employers, because the injury to the plaintiff resulted from what was wilful misbehaviour by the other boys and a wicked act which the employers had no reason to foresee. There was no history of childish behaviour – the employers did not know or ought to have known about the defendant’s propensity for skylarking. 1. ADEQUATE PLANT & EQUIPMENT An employer must take the necessary steps to provide adequate plant and equipment for his workers, and he will be liable to any workman who is injured through the absence of any equipment which is obviously necessary or which a reasonable employer would recognise as being necessary for the safety of the workman.The employer must take reasonable care to ensure that damage is not caused to the employee by the absence of necessary safety equipment such as goggles, safety helmets, shoes etc. or by the presence of unsafe machinery. Sammy v. BWIA (1988) High Court, TT, No 5692 of 1983 (unreported) The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant as a mechanic, was sent to repair a vehicle which had broken down on a ramp at Piarco Airport. While attempting to start the vehicle, it caught fire. No fire extinguishers were provided either in the vehicle being repaired or in the service vehicle and, in attempting to put out the fire with a cloth, the plaintiff suffered burns.HELD: – Gopeesingh J held the defendant liable for breach of its common law duty to the plaintiff to take reasonable care for his safe ty,†¦by not exposing him to safety to any unnecessary risk during the performance of his duties as an employee†¦By failing to provide fire extinguishers on these vehicles, the defendant clearly exposed the plaintiff to unnecessary risk when the fire started on the vehicle†¦The defendant was under a duty to provide proper safety appliances on these vehicles to safeguard the plaintiff in the event of such an occurrence. Morris v. Point Lisas Steel Products Ltd (1989) High Court, TT, No 1886 of 1983 (unreported) The plaintiff was employed as a machine operator at the defendant’s factory. While the plaintiff was using a wire cutting machine, a piece of steel flew into his right eye, causing a complete loss of sight in that eye. Holding the employer in breach of its common law duty of care in failing to provide goggles; HELD: – Hosein J said that†¦since the risk was obvious to the defendant and not insidious, the defendant ought to have made goggles avai lable and also given firm instructions that they must be orn, and the defendant ought to have educated the men and made it a rule of the factory that goggles must be worn, since, if an accident did happen, the probability was likely to be the loss of sight of one or both eyes. Forbes v. Burns House Ltd (2000) Supreme Court, The Bahamas, No 432 of 1995 (unreported) An office worker was injured at the workplace when a swivel chair on which she was sitting collapsed. HELD: – the employer was in breach of its duty to inspect and maintain office equipment, including the chair. McGhee v. National Coal Board [1972] 3 All ER 1008 The appellant was sent by the respondents, his employers, to clean out brick kilns.Although the working conditions there were hot and dirty, the appellant being exposed to clouds of abrasive brick dust, the respondents provided no adequate washing facilities. In consequence the appellant had to continue exerting himself after work by bicycling home caked wit h sweat and grime. After some days working in the brick kilns the appellant was found to be suffering from dermatitis. In an action by the appellant against the respondents for negligence the medical evidence showed that the dermatitis had been caused by the working conditions in the brick kilns. The evidence also showed that the fact that after work the appellant had had to exert himself further by bicycling home with brick dust adhering to his skin had added materially to the risk that he might develop the disease.It was held in the Court of Session that the respondents had been in breach of duty to the appellant in failing to provide adequate washing facilities but that the appellant’s action failed because he had not shown that that breach of duty had caused his injury, in that there was no positive evidence that it was more probable than not that he would not have contracted dermatitis if adequate washing facilities had been provided. On appeal, HELD: – A defender was liable in negligence to the pursuer if the defender’s breach of duty had caused, or materially contributed to, the injury suffered by the pursuer notwithstanding that there were other factors, for which the defender was not responsible, which had contributed to the injury. Accordingly the respondents were liable to the appellant, and the appeal would be allowed, because— (i) (per Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon f Glaisdale and Lord Salmon) a finding that the respondents’ breach of duty had materially increased the risk of injury to the appellant amounted, for practical purposes, to a finding that the respondents’ breach of duty had materially contributed to his injury, at least (per Lord Wilberforce) in the absence of positive proof by the respondents to the contrary; (ii) (per Lord Kilbrandon) on the facts found, the appellant had succeeded in showing that, on a balance of probabilities, his injury had been caused or contributed to by the re spondents’ breach of duty 2. SAFE SYSTEM OF WORKING An employer must organise a safe system of working (includes a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect employees from attacks by armed bandits) and must ensure as far as possible that the system is adhered to.In addition to supervising workmen, the employer should organise a system which itself reduces the risk of injury from the workmen’s foreseeable carelessness. This has been described as â€Å"†¦the sequence in which the work is to be carried out the provision in proper cases of warnings and notices and the issue of special instructions†¦Ã¢â‚¬  per Lord Greene MR Legall v. Skinner Drilling (Contractors) Ltd (1993) High Court, Barbados, No 1775 of 1991 (unreported) The defendant company was engaged in oil drilling. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a derrick man, one of his duties being the removal of nuts and bolts from the rigs as part of the ‘rigging down’ operation. In order to remove a bolt from a rig platform about 10 ft from the ground, the plaintiff was given an empty oil drum to stand on.The drum toppled over and the plaintiff fell to the ground and was injured. HELD: – the defendant, by failing to ensure that its workers used ladders to reach high platforms and to warn the plaintiff of the danger of standing on the oil drum, was in breach of its common law duty to provide a safe system of work. Bish v. Leathercraft Ltd. (1975) 24 WIR 351 The plaintiff was operating a button pressing machine in the defendants’ factory when a button became stuck in the piston. While attempting to dislodge the button with her right index finger, the plaintiff’s elbow came into contact with an unguarded lever, which caused the piston to descend and crush her finger.HELD: – The Jamaican Court of Appeal held that the defendants were in breach of their common law duties to provide adequate equipment and a safe system of work, in that: (a) the button had not been pre-heated, which was the cause of its becoming stuck in the position; (b) no three inch nail, which would have been effective to dislodge the button, was provided for the plaintiff’s use, with the result that the plaintiff had to resort to using her finger; and (c) the lever was not provided with a guard, which would most probably have prevented the accident which occurred. Qualcast v. Haynes [1959] AC 743 Hurdle v. Allied metals Ltd. [1974] 9 Barb LR 1 3. SAFE PLACE OF WORK An employer has a duty to take care to ensure that the premises where his employees are required to work are reasonably safe. The duty exists only in relation to those parts of the workplace which the employee is authorised to enter.An employee who enters an area which he knows to be ‘out of bounds’, will generally be treated as a trespasser. As the occupier, in most cases, of the workplace, the employer is under a duty to the employee (a lawful visitor) to take reasonable care to see that the premises are reasonably safe for the purpose of doing the job. Where the employer is not the occupier of the workplace, there is still a requirement that he take reasonable care to ensure that the worker is reasonably safe. This will vary with the circumstances. A significant question is whether the employer knew of or ought to have been aware of the danger and what steps were to be regarded as reasonable in providing a safe place of work. Alcan (Jamaica) Ltd v.Nicholson (1986) Court of Appeal, Jamaica, Civ App No 49 of 1985 (unreported), per Hall J A welder, during his lunch break, left his area of work at a bauxite installation and entered a location called a ‘precipitation area’, in search of cigarettes. There, he suffered a serious eye injury when caustic soda, which was stored in tanks, splashed into his eye. HELD: – the employer/occupier was held not liable for the injury, since the welder was a trespasser in the area who kne w he had no right to be there and was well aware of the dangers of caustic soda. Watson v. Arawak Cement Co Ltd (1998) High Court, Barbados, No 958 of 1990 (unreported) The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a general worker. He was sent to work on a ship which was in the possession of a third party.While attempting to leave the ship at the end of his day’s work, the plaintiff fell from an unlit walkway inside the ship and sustained injuries. HELD: – Chase J held the defendant liable on account of its failure to provide a suitable means of egress from the ship and to instruct the plaintiff as to the method of leaving the vessel. Another aspect of the employer’s duty to exercise reasonable care and not to expose his servants to unnecessary risk in his duty to provide a reasonable safe place of work and access thereto. This duty does not come to an end merely because the employee has been sent to work at premises which are occupied by a third party and not the employer. The duty remains throughout the course of his employment.General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v. Christmas [1953] AC 180 The plaintiff, a window cleaner, was employed by the defendants, a firm of contractors, to clean the windows of a club. While, following the practice usually adopted by employees of the defendants, he was standing on the sill of one of the windows to clean the outside of the window and was holding one sash of the window for support, the other sash came down on his fingers, causing him to let go and fall to the ground, suffering injury. On a claim by him against the defendants for damages; HELD: – it was held by the House of Lords that even assuming that other systems of carrying out the work, e. g. by the use of safety belts or ladders, were impracticable, the defendants were still under an obligation to ensure that the system that was adopted was as reasonably safe as it could be made and that their employees were instructed as to the steps to b e taken to avoid accidents; the defendants had not discharged their duty in this respect towards the plaintiff; and, therefore, they were liable to him in respect of his injury. Per Lord Reid: Where a practice of ignoring an obvious danger has grown up it is not reasonable to expect an individual workman to take the initiative in devising and using precautions. It is the duty of the employer to consider the situation, to devise a suitable system, to instruct his men what they must do, and to supply any implements that may be required.Since the employer’s liability is merely another form of negligence, the employee must establish not only the breach of the duty of care owed to her, but also that it legally caused the resultant damage, and that such damage was not too remote. Walker v. Northumberland [1995] 1 All ER 737 The plaintiff was employed by the defendant local authority as an area social services officer from 1970 until December 1987. He was responsible for managing fo ur teams of social services fieldworkers in an area which had a high proportion of child care problems. In 1986 the plaintiff suffered a nervous breakdown because of the stress and pressures of work and was off work for three months. Before he returned to work he discussed his position with his superior who agreed that some assistance should be provided to lessen the burden of the plaintiff's work.In the event, when the plaintiff returned to work only very limited assistance was provided and he found that he had to clear the backlog of paperwork that had built up during his absence while the pending child care cases in his area were increasing at a considerable rate. Six months later he suffered a second mental breakdown and was forced to stop work permanently. In February 1988 he was dismissed by the local authority on the grounds of permanent ill health. He brought an action against the local authority claiming damages for breach of its duty of care, as his employer, to take reaso nable steps to avoid exposing him to a health-endangering workload.HELD: – It was held in the QBD that where it was reasonably foreseeable to an employer that an employee might suffer a nervous breakdown because of the stress and pressures of his workload, the employer was under a duty of care, as part of the duty to provide a safe system of work, not to cause the employee psychiatric damage by reason of the volume or character of the work which the employee was required to perform. On the facts, prior to the 1986 illness, it was not reasonably foreseeable to the local authority that the plaintiff's workload would give rise to a material risk of mental illness. However, as to the second illness, the local authority ought to have foreseen that if the plaintiff was again exposed to the same workload there was a risk that he would suffer another nervous breakdown which would probably end his career as an area manager.The local authority ought therefore to have provided additiona l assistance to reduce the plaintiff's workload even at the expense of some disruption of other social work and, in choosing to continue to employ the plaintiff without providing effective help, it had acted unreasonably and in breach of its duty of care. It followed that the local authority was liable in negligence for the plaintiff's second nervous breakdown and that accordingly there would be judgment for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed. Sutherland v. Hatton [2002] IRLR 263 The claimant in this case was a secondary school teacher who suffered from depression and a nervous breakdown and was initially awarded ? 90,765.HELD: – The CA found that Hatton gave the school she worked for no notice that she was growing unable to cope with her work. She had suffered some distressing events outside of work, which the school could reasonably have attributed her absence to, particularly as other staff did not suffer from health problems as a result of restructuring in the scho ol, and the fact that she did not complain. The court held that as teaching cannot be regarded as intrinsically stressful; the school had done all they could reasonably be expected to do. It was unnecessary to have in place systems to overcome the reluctance of people to voluntarily seek help. The guidelines set up by the CA are as follows: 1.There are no special control mechanisms relating to work-related stress injury claims; ordinary principles of employers’ liability apply. 2. The â€Å"threshold† question is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable. 3. Foreseeability depends on what the employer knows or should know about the individual employee. Unless aware of a particular problem or vulnerability, the employer can usually assume that the employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job. 4. The test is the same for all occupations; no occupation is to be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health. 5. Reason able foreseeability of harm includes consideration of:  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   the nature and extent of the work   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   whether the workload is much greater than normal  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   whether the work is particularly intellectually or emotionally demanding for that employee  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   whether unreasonable demands are being made of the employee  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   whether others doing this job are suffering harmful levels of stress  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   whether there is an abnormal level of sickness or absenteeism in the same job or department. The employer can take what the employee tells it at face value, unless it has good reason not to, and need not make searching enquiries of the employee or his or her medical advisors. 6. The employer can take what the employee tells it at face value, unless it has good reason not to and need not make searching enquiries of the employee or his/her medical advisors. 7. The duty to take steps is triggered by indications of impending harm to health, which must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise it has to act. 8.There is a breach of duty only if the employer has failed to take steps that are reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the magnitude of the risk of harm occurring, the gravity of that harm, the costs and practicability of preventing it and the justifications for running the risk. 9. The employer’s size, scope, resources and demands on it are relevant in deciding what is reasonable (including the need to treat other employees fairly, for example in any redistribution of duties). 10. An employer need only take steps that are likely to do some good; the court will need expert evidence on this. 1. An employer that offers a confidential advice service, with appropriate counselling or treatment services is unlikely to be found in breach of duty. 2.If the only reasonable and effective way to prevent the injury would be to dismiss or demote the employee, the employer will not be in breach in allowing a willing employee to continue working. 3. In all cases, it is necessary to identify the steps that the employer could and should have taken before finding it in breach of duty of care 4. The claimant must show that that breach of duty has caused or materially contributed to the harm suffered. It is not enough to show that occupational stress caused the harm; it must be linked with the breach. 5. Where the harm suffered has more than one cause, the employer should only pay for that part caused by its wrongdoing, unless the harm is indivisible. 1.Assessment of damages will take account of pre-existing disorders or vulnerability and the chance that the claimant would have suffered a stress-related disorder in any event. Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing [1957] 2 All ER 229 The plaintiff, while at work, was injured through a foolish prank played on him by Chadw ick, a fellow workman. Over a period of about four years C had been in the habit of indulging in horseplay during his work, at the expense of the plaintiff and the other workmen. The employers knew about C's conduct and had frequently reprimanded him and warned him that someone might one day be hurt, but, although he paid no heed to their reprimands, he was allowed to remain in their employment.In an action by the plaintiff against the employers, claiming damages for negligence at common law; HELD: – it was held at Manchester Assizes that the employers were liable to the plaintiff in damages for breach of their duty at common law to provide competent workmen, because, if a workman, by his habitual conduct, was likely to prove a source of danger to his fellow workmen, it was the employers' duty to remove that source of danger, and the plaintiff's injury was sustained as a result of the employers' failure to take proper steps to put an end to C's horseplay or to remove him from their employment if he persisted in it. Smith v Crossley Brothers Ltd ((1951) 95 Sol Jo 655) considered. Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co [1958] 2 All ER 265A master's duty to his servant to take reasonable care so to carry out his operations as not to subject his servant unnecessary (see Smith v Baker & Sons [1891] AC at p362) is one single duty applicable in all circumstances, though it may be convenient to divide it into categories (as was done by Lord Wright in Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English [1937] 3 All ER at p640) when dealing with a particular case. So viewed, the question whether the master was in control of the premises, or whether the premises were those of a stranger, becomes merely one of the ingredients, albeit an important one, in considering the question of fact whether, in all the circumstances, the master took reasonable care.A skilled and experienced window cleaner, who knew that he should not trust the handles on windows without first testing them, was freque ntly sent by his employers to clean the windows of a particular customer. The employers did not inspect the customer's premises each time when they sent the window cleaners there, nor did they specifically warn the window cleaner of particular dangers; but they did instruct him to leave uncleaned any window which presented unusual difficulty and which he was in doubt whether he could clean safely, to report the fact to them and to ask for further instructions. There was no evidence of any practice in the trade either of inspecting premises for safety before work or of repeatedly warning workmen of the dangers.While cleaning the outside of a kitchen window, the woodwork of which appeared to the window cleaner to be rotten, of which he knew the sash to be stiff and of which one of the two handles was missing, the window cleaner attempted to pull the window down by the remaining handle. The handle came away in his hand, causing him to lose his balance, fall and sustain severe injuries. In an action by the window cleaner against the employers for alleged negligence exposing him to unnecessary risk; HELD: – it was held by the Court of Appeal that the employers had taken reasonable care not to subject the plaintiff to unnecessary risk, because the danger was an apparent danger, the plaintiff was very experienced at the work, and they had instructed him not to clean windows which it might not be safe to clean; the employers, therefore, were not liable. DEFENCES 1.Volenti non fit injuria is a defence for an employer against an employee. It could apply where an employee is so negligent that it could be said that the employee is completely at fault. 2. An employee's knowledge of the existence of a danger does not in itself amount to consent to run the risk. 3. Contributory negligence is also a defence that an employer may utilise against an employee. However, the courts are reluctant to apply this doctrine. This doctrine does not completely exonerate an employee but in fact reduces the amount of damages (apportionment) given to the employee. 4. Contributory negligence is a defence both to an action in negligence and breach of statutory duty.In general, however, the carelessness of employees as claimants is treated more leniently than the negligence of employers, even where liability rests upon the vicarious responsibility of the employer for the negligence of another employee. Smith v. Baker [1891] AC 325 When a workman engaged in an employment not in itself dangerous is exposed to danger arising from an operation in another department over which he has no control – the danger being created or enhanced by the negligence of the employer – the mere fact that he undertakes or continues in such employment with full knowledge and understanding of the danger is not conclusive to show that he has undertaken the risk so as to make the maxim â€Å"Volenti non fit injuria† applicable in case of injury.The question whether he has so undertaken the risk is one of fact and not of law. And this so both at common law and in cases arising under the Employers Liability Act 1880. The plaintiff was employed by railway contractors to drill holes in a rock cutting near a crane worked by men in the employ of the contractors. The crane lifted stones and at times swung over the plaintiff's head without warning. The plaintiff was fully aware of the danger to which he was exposed by thus working near the crane without any warning being given, and had been thus employed for months. A stone having fallen from the crane and injured the plaintiff, he sued his employers in the County Court under the Employers Liability Act 1880.HELD: – the House of Lords, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal (Lord Bramwell dissenting), that the mere fact that the plaintiff undertook and continued in the employment with full knowledge and understanding of the danger arising from the systematic neglect to give warning did not prec lude him from recovering; that the evidence would justify a finding that the plaintiff did not voluntarily undertake the risk of injury; that the maxim â€Å"Volenti non fit injuria† did not apply; and that the action was maintainable. ICI v. Shatwell [1965] AC 656 G and J who were brothers, were certificated and experienced shotfirers employed by ICI Ltd.By their employers' rules, and by reg 27(4) of the Quarries (Explosives) Regulations 1959, G and J were required to ensure that no testing of an electric circuit for shotfiring should be done unless all persons in the vicinity had withdrawn to shelter. The statutory duty was imposed on G and J, not on their employers. The risk, which had been explained to G and J, was of premature explosions. On the day of the accident, while a third man had gone to fetch a longer cable so that a shotfiring circuit, which had been made in the course of their employment, could be tested from shelter, G invited J to proceed with him to make a test in the open. G and J were injured by the resulting explosion.On appeal from an award of damages to G (both negligence and breach of statutory duty by J being found at the trial, and the award being of an amount reduced in respect of G's contributory negligence) in an action by G against the employers as vicariously responsible for J's breach of duty; HELD: – the House of Lords said that although J's acts were a contributing cause (Viscount Radcliffe dissenting as regards causation) of G's injury, the employers were not liable because – (1) the employers not being themselves in breach of duty, any liability of theirs would be vicarious liability for the fault of J, and to such liability (whether for negligence or for breach of statutory duty) the principle volenti non fit injuria afforded a defence, where, as here, the facts showed that G and J knew and accepted the risk (albeit a remote risk) of testing in a way that contravened their employers' instructions and t he statutory regulations. (2) (per Viscount Radcliffe) each of them, G and J, emerged from their joint enterprise as author of his own injury, and neither should be regarded as having contributed a separate wrongful act injuring the other.Per Lord Pearce (Viscount Radcliffe concurring): the defence of volenti non fit injuria should be available where the employer is not himself in breach of statutory duty and is not vicariously in breach of any statutory duty through neglect of some person of superior rank to the plaintiff and whose commands the plaintiff is bound to obey, or who has some special and different duty of care. [Editorial Note – There was no breach of statutory duty by the employers: the defence of â€Å"volens† was admitted against vicarious responsibility only †¦ The defence is not available to an employer on whom a statutory obligation is imposed as against liability for his own breach of that obligation. ] Staple v. Gypson Mines Ltd [1953] AC 663 The plaintiff claimed damages on behalf of her husband. There had been a mining accident. A roof fell in the section of the mine where the deceased was working and he was crushed.The deceased and another colleague had been told to bring the rest of the roof down; however, they left part of the roof hanging and then continued working. HELD: – The House of Lords held that the employer was vicariously liable as Mr. Staple consented to continue working and such consent amounted to 80% contributory negligence. Fagelson (1979) 42 MLR 646 Flower v. Ebbw Vale Steel Iron & Coal Ltd [1934] 2 KB 134 The plaintiff brought an action for personal injury alleged to have been sustained by a workman through his employers' breach of their statutory duty under s10 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901, in not securely fencing a machine for rolling metal sheets in their factory. The workman in the course of his duty was cleaning the machine.To enable this to be done the rollers are set in motion. The safe and simple way to clean them is to take one's stand at the back of the machine and apply emery-cloth or engineers' waste over the iron bar to the upper part of the rollers; for then all the seven rollers are revolving away from the operator. There was some evidence that he had been told to use this method, but it was of a vague and general kind. The employers pleaded that the alleged injury was caused solely by the workman's own negligence in attempting to clean the machine at a wrong part, and omitting to take reasonable care to prevent his left hand from coming into contact with the rollers.The judge held that the machine was dangerous and that it was not sufficiently fenced; but that the workman had acted in disobedience to his orders without any good reason for so acting, and that his disobedience was the proximate cause of the accident. The judge also held that the defence of contributory negligence was open to the employers. Accordingly he gave judgment for the emplo yers. The workman appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the trial judge. HELD: – The House of Lords held that judgment be entered for the employee. The decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed on the ground that the only contributory negligence relied on was disobedience to orders, and that the evidence at the trial was insufficient to prove that the alleged orders were ever given.Consideration was given by Lord Wright (at p214-5) of the circumstances in which contributory negligence may be pleaded as a defence to an action by a workman for personal injuries through a breach by his employers of their duty under s10 (1) (c) of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901, to fence securely all dangerous parts of the machinery in their factory. Per Lawrence J – â€Å"It is not for every risky thing which a workman in a factory may do in his familiarity with the machinery that [he] ought to be held guilty of contributory negligence†¦ 3. Breach of Statutory Duty (Employment) An employer may be under a statutory duty to provide safety equipment to protect his employees from injury, especially where they are operating dangerous machinery.Generally, where a statute provides a criminal penalty for an infringement of one of its provisions, the penalty is normally treated as the only liability to which the offender is subject, and no civil action is usually maintainable infringement against him by the victim of his criminal conduct. However, it has for long been recognised that the statutory duties imposed on an employer to enhance the safety of it employees may form the basis of an action for damages by an injured employee for breach of statutory duty. See Factories Act An employer who fails to provide equipment as required by statute will be liable for breach of statutory duty. An employee who is injured as a consequence of a breach of statutory duty must show: 1. That the act which caused the damage was regulated by the statute; 2.That he was one of the persons whom the statute was intended to protect; and 3. That the damage suffered was of a kind that the statute was intended to prevent. The first two requirements are normally easy to satisfy, but the third may be problematic. Gorris v. Scott (1874) LR 9 Ex 125 A ship-owner was required by statute to provide pens for cattle on board his ship. He failed to do this, with the result that the plaintiff’s cattle were swept overboard. HELD: – that the ship-owner was not liable for the loss, because the damage that the statute was intended to prevent was the spread of contagious diseases, not the sweeping overboard of the cattle. Close v. Steel Co of Wales Ltd [1962] AC 367It was held that a workman who is injured by a dangerous part of machinery which flies out of a machine and injures him cannot base a claim on the statutory obligation that dangerous parts of machinery ‘shall be securely fenced’, because the purpose of the statutory duty is ‘to keep the worker out, not to keep the machine or its product in’. Morris v. Seanem Fixtures Ltd (1976) 11 Barb LR 104, High Court Barbados The plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a shop-hand and fitter. Without being authorised or directed to do so by the defendants, she operated a ‘planer’ at the factory, and in attempting to remove some wood shavings from the machine while it was still in motion, sustained injuries to her hand when it became caught in the machine’s rotating blades. She brought an action against the defendants for negligence and breach of statutory duty.HELD: – (a) the claim in negligence failed, since the plaintiff had not been directed or authorised to use the machine; (b) the claim for breach of statutory duty succeeded. The cutting rotor of the planer was a dangerous part of a machine and the defendants were in breach of the duty imposed by s 10(1) of the Factories Act, Cap 347, in failing to fence or t o provided some other safety device to prevent contact; (c) the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and her damages would be reduced by two-thirds. Walker v. Clarke (1959) 1 WIR 143, Court of Appeal, Jamaica The plaintiff/respondent operated a dough-brake machine in the course of his employment at the defendant’s/appellant’s bakery. The machine had a revolving turntable to feed the dough to rollers, but, as this did not work atisfactorily, the respondent, on the instructions of the appellant, fed the dough to the rollers by hand. While attempting to remove some foreign matter from the machine whilst it was in motion, the respondent put his hand too close to the rollers and his fingers were crushed. HELD: – the rollers were a dangerous part of the machine and, as they were not securely fenced, the appellant was in breach of his statutory duty. Bux v. Slough Metals Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 262 Nimmo v. Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd [1968] AC 107 4. Occupationa l Health & Safety Legislation This type of legislation applies to all forms of employment with only few exceptions, whereas the Factories legislations apply to only such establishments.Essentially, these Acts provide for the general duties of employers to their employees and to persons other than their employees; the general duties of employees; the rights of employees to refuse to perform dangerous work; administrative and criminal sanctions for contravention of its provisions and specific duties in respect of the safety, health and welfare of those in the establishment. R v. Associated Octel Co Ltd [1997] IRLR 123 R v. Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd [1981] ICR 831 R v. Gateway Foodmarkets Ltd [1997] IRLR 189 October 07, 2006 Worksheet II VICARIOUS LIABILITY Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment. The expression ‘vicarious liability’ refers to the situation where D2 is liable to P for damages c aused to P by the negligence or other tort of D1.It is not necessary that D2 should have participated in the tort or have been in any way at fault. D2 is liable simply because he stands in a particular relationship with D1. That relationship is normally one of ‘master and servant’, or in modern parlance ‘employer an employee’. DEVELOPMENT OF VICARIOUS LIABIITY In early medieval times a master was held responsible for all the wrongs of his servants. Later as the feudal system disintegrated, the ‘command theory’ emerged, under which a master was liable only for those acts of his servants which he had ordered or which he had subsequently ratified. Later still, with the development and expansion of industry and commerce, the ‘command theory’ fell into disuse for two main reasons: 1.Under modern conditions it was no longer practicable for an employer to always control the activities of his employees, especially those employed in large b usinesses; and. 2. The greatly increased hazards of modern enterprises required a wider range of responsibility on the part of employers than that which had been imposed in earlier times. The theory of vicarious liability which eventually emerged was that a master is liable for any tort committed by his servant in the course of the servant’s employment, irrespective of whether the master authorized or ratified the activity complained of, and even though he may have expressly forbidden it. The modern theory of vicarious liability is based on considerations of social policy rather than fault.It may seem unfair and legally unjustifiable that a person who has himself committed no wrong should be liable for the wrongdoing of another, on the other hand, it may be argued that a person who employs others to advance his economic interests should be held responsible for any harm caused by the actions of those employees, and that the innocent victim of an employee’s tort should b e able to sue a financially responsible defendant, who may in any case take out a policy against liability. The cost of such insurance will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the public on the form of higher prices. However, care should be taken not to hamper business enterprises unduly by imposing too wide a range of liability o employers. Therefore there is a requirement that a master will only be liable for those torts hich his servant committed during the course of his employment-that is, while the servant was doing his job he was employed to do. According to Michael A. Jones, Textbook on Torts, 2000, p379, several reasons have been advanced as a justification for the imposition of vicarious liability: 1. The master has the ‘deepest pockets'. The wealth of a defendant, or the fact that he has access to resources via insurance, has in some cases had an unconscious influence on the development of legal principles. 2. Vicarious liability encourages accident prevention by giving an employer a financial interest in encouraging his employees to take care for the safety of others. 3.As the employer makes a profit from the activities of his employees, he should also bear any losses that those activities cause. Three questions must be asked in order to establish liability: 1) Was a tort committed? 2) Was the tortfeasor an employee? 3) Ws the employee acting in the course of employment when the tort was committed? SERVANTS AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS A person who is employed to do a job may be either a servant or an independent contractor. It is important to decide which category he comes into, for whilst an employer is liable for the torts of his servants, he is generally not liable for those of his independent contractors.Various tests for establishing an individual's employment status have been developed through the cases: (a) The control test This was the traditional test. According to ‘Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts’: A servant m ay be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer: an independent contractor is one who is his own master. A servant is a person engaged to obey the employer’s orders from time to time; an independent contractor is a person engaged to do certain work, but to exercise his own discretion as to the mode and time of doing it – he is bound by his contract, but not by his employer’s orders.A servant is employed under a contract of service, whereas an independent contractor is employed under a contract for services: In Collins v Hertfordshire CC [1947] 1 All ER 633, Hilbery J said: â€Å"The distinction between a contract for services and a contract of service can be summarised in this way: In one case the master can order or require what is to be done, while in the other case he can not only order or require what is to be done, but how it shall be done. † But in Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 1 All ER 574, Somervell LJ pointed out that this test is not universally correct. There are many contracts of service where the master cannot control the manner in which the work is to be done, as in the case of a captain of a ship.He went on to say: â€Å"One perhaps cannot get much beyond this ‘Was the contract a contract of service within the meaning which an ordinary person would give under the words? ’† However, although the control test may be satisfactory in the most basic domestic situations, it has proved to be quite inadequate in the context of modern business enterprise, where large organisations commonly employ highly skilled professional persons under contracts of service, and yet do not or cannot control the manner in which they do their work. (b) The Organisation Test A useful alternative to the control test, and one which is more in keeping with the realities of modern business, is what may be cal led the ‘organisation test’.This test was explained by Denning LJ in Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v. Macdonald and Evans Ltd as: Under a contract of service, a man is employed as part of a business, and his work is done as an integral part of the business; whereas under a contract for services, his work, although done for the business, is not integrated into it but is only accessory to it. Examples of servants of the organisation under this test include: hospital doctors and nurses, school teachers, airline pilots, office clerical staff and factory workers. Examples of independent contractors include: freelance journalists, attorneys, architects plumbers and taxi drivers driving their own vehicles. (c) The ‘Multiple’ or ‘Mixed’ TestThe three conditions suggested by MacKenna J in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions, for the existence of a contract of service of employment are: 1. the employee agrees to provide his work and skill to the employer in return for a wage or other remuneration; 2. the employee agrees, expressly or impliedly, to be directed as to the mode of performance to such a degree as to make the other his employer; and 3. the other terms of the contract are consistent with there being a contract of employment. In applying this test, the courts do not limit themselves to considering just those three factors.They consider a wide range of factors including: the degree of control over the worker’s work; his connection with the business; the terms of the agreement between the parties; the nature and regularity of the work; and the method of payment of wages. LENDING AN EMPLOYEE/SERVANT If an employer lends an employee to another employer on a temporary basis, as a general rule it will be difficult for the first employer to shift responsibility to the temporary employer. Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 345 The appellants employed Y as a driver of a mobile crane. They hired out the crane, together with Y as driver, to the respondents, a stevedoring company, for use in unloading a ship.The contract between the appellants and the respondents provided that Y was to be the servant of the respondents, but Y was paid by the appellants, who alone had the power of dismissal. Whilst loading the cargo, Y was under the immediate control of the respondents, in the sense that they could tell him which boxes to load and where to place them, but they had no power to tell him how to manipulate the controls of the crane. The House of Lords had to decide whether it was the appellants or the respondents who were vicariously liable for Y’s negligence, and the answer to that question depended upon whether he was the respondents’ or the appellants’ servant at the time of the accident. HELD: – The House of Lords held that the driver remained the servant of the Board and thus the appellants were vicariously liable.Lord Port er said that in order to make the respondents liable, it was not sufficient to show that they controlled the task to be performed: it must also be shown that they controlled the manner of performing it. And, ‘where a man driving a mechanical device, such as a crane, is sent to perform a task, it is easier to infer that the general employer continues to control the method of performance, since it is his crane and the driver remains responsible to him for its safe keeping’. These principles were applied in the Bahamian case of Joseph v. Hepburn (1992) Supreme Court, The Bahamas, No 762 of 1989 (unreported). H engaged an independent contractor, S Ltd, to clear his land of bush.In the course of clearing the land, A, a tractor driver employed by S Ltd, encroached upon the plaintiff’s adjacent land and destroyed a number of fruit trees. The main issue in the case was whether S Ltd, as general employer of A, was liable for A’s tort, or whether, as S Ltd alleged, the responsibility for the tort had been shifted to H as special employer. The contractual arrangement between H and S Ltd showed that H had identified the general area in which work was to be done and S Ltd arranged for its project manager to accompany H to the site to see what was required. S Ltd had delegated the tractor driver, A, to take instructions from H, but A’ wages were paid by S Ltd.HELD: – Thorne J said that whether A was to be regarded as the servant of the general employer, S Ltd, ‘or whether he became pro hac vice the servant of his particular employer [H] is a question of fact and depends upon an interpretation of the agreement made between [S Ltd and H]’. His Lordship held that S Ltd had ‘failed to discharge the heavy burden on it to shift to [H] its prima facie responsibility for the acts of the driver, and so [A] remained the servant of [S Ltd]. ‘What was transferred was not the servant but the use and benefit of his workâ⠂¬â„¢. Thorne J ultimately held that H had been negligent in his failure to give clear instructions to A with respect to the extent of his boundaries, and S Ltd was entitled to recover from H 10% of the damages that it was liable to pay to the plaintiff. COMMISSION OF A TORT BY THE SERVANTFor the master to be vicariously liable, the plaintiff must first prove the commission of a tort by the servant. As Denning LJ explained†¦to make a master liable for the conduct of his servant, the first question is to see whether the servant is liable. If the answer is ‘yes’, then the second question is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant’s liability. In other words, vicarious liability of the master arises only on the primary liability of the servant. RES IPSA LOQUITOR Sometimes, it may be difficult or impossible to prove affirmatively which one of several servants was negligent. As far as the liability of hospitals is concerned, it was established in Ca ssidy v.Ministry of Health that, where the plaintiff had been injured as a result of some operation in the control of one or more servants of a hospital authority, and he cannot identify the particular servant who was responsible, the hospital authority will be vicariously liable, unless it proves that there was no negligent treatment by any of its servants; in other words, res ipsa loquitor applies. In the absence of authority to the contrary, there seems to be no reason why this principle should not apply to other master/servant relationships. THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT/SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT An employer will only be liable for torts which the employee commits in the course of employment. There is no single test for this, although Parke B famously stated in Joel v Morison (1834) 6 C&P 501 at 503, that the servant must be engaged on his master's business, not ‘on a frolic of his own’. A tort comes within the course of the servant’s employment if: 1. t is expressly or impliedly authorised by his master; or 2. it is an unauthorised manner of doing something authorised by his master; or 3. it is necessarily incidental to something which the servant is employed to do. Although this definition is easy enough to state, the second and third circumstances in particular have proved to be very difficult to determine in practice, and it is now accepted that the question of whether a servant’s act is within the course of his employment is ultimately one of fact in each case. Some relevant factors which the courts take into account when considering the question include: 4. Manner of doing the work the servant was employed to doA master will be liable for the negligent act of his servant if that act was an unauthorised mode of doing what the servant was employed to do. The classic example is: Century Insurance Co Ltd v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board There, the driver of a petrol tanker, whilst transferring gasoline from the vehicle to an under ground tank at a filling station, struck a match in order to light a cigarette and then threw it, still alight, on the floor. HELD: – His employers were held liable for the ensuing explosion and fire, since the driver’s negligent act was merely an unauthorised manner of doing what he was employed to do. Beard v. London General Omnibus Co [1900] 2 QB 530The employers of a bus conductor who took it upon himself to turn a bus around at the terminus and, in so doing, negligently injured the plaintiff, were held not liable because the conductor was employed to collect fares, not drive buses, and his act was entirely outside the scope of his employment. 5. Authorised limits of time and place A relevant factor in determining whether or not a servant’s tort is within the course of his employment is the time or place at which it is committed. As regards time, where a tort is committed during working hours or within a reasonable period before or after, the court is more l ikely to hold the employer liable for it.Thus, in Ruddiman and Co v. Smith (1889) 60 LT 708, where a clerk turned on a tap in the washroom 10 minutes after office hours and forgot to turn it off before going home, his employers were held liable for the consequent flooding of adjoining premises. The use of the washroom by the clerk was an incident of his employment and the negligent act took place only a few minutes after working hours. As regards the place where the tort is committed, a difficult question which has frequently come before the courts is whether a driver/servant is within the course of his employment where he drive negligently after making a detour from his authorised route.The principle to be applied in these cases was laid down by Parke B in Joel v. Morrison (1834) 172 ER 1338: If he was going out of his way, against his master’s implied commands, when driving on his master’s business, he will make his master liable; but if he was going on a frolic of h is own, without being at all on his master’s business, the master will not be liable. Whether a detour by the servant amounts to a ‘frolic of his own’ is a question of degree, and both the extent of the deviation and its purpose will be taken into account. Dunkley v. Howell (1975) 24 WIR 293 R was employed to drive Mrs W in the defendant/appellant’s car to May pen and thereafter to Mrs.W’s home at Mocho, where the car was to be garaged. On reaching May pen, Mrs. W remained there, but R drove the car to Thompson Town for his own private purposes. On his way back from Thompson Town, R negligently ran into the back of the plaintiff

buy custom Muscle Stimulation essay

buy custom Muscle Stimulation essay Muscles are contractile tissues that aid in the movement of the body. They have the ability to provide the necessary motion for the body. They also give the stamina that is required for the internal organs of the body. Muscles enable the body to have sufficient energy for various activities. The body muscles keep the body upright. Nervous system acts as the main controller of the muscles. Purpose of Study There are three main types of the muscles in the body. These are: skeletal, cardiac, and smooth muscles. These muscles are classified according to their functions and locations. They also appear in different shapes and sizes. For instance: spindle-shaped, flat shaped and circular. This paper seeks to explore different types of muscles, their composition as well as structure. Skeletal muscles are responsible for the support of skeleton. Body builder often do exercises so as to strengthen their skeletal muscles. In other words, skeletal muscles help in the motion of the body. Skeletal muscles constitute fifty percent of the body mass. Skeletal muscles join different skeletons by the help of tendons. These muscles are voluntary and consciously controlled. Usually, when a person decides to make any movement like running or jumping, this information is sent to the nervous system by the brain which then commissions the muscle to act accordingly. If it contracts, then a movement is made in the area that receives the information from the nervous system. The muscles have diverse sizes and shapes. This enables them to do different functions in the body. Some of the skeletal muscles include biceps that are used to bend arms, rectus abdominis found at the stomach, and frontalis located at the forehead. They are located at different parts of the body depending on the degree of their work. Skeletal muscles are made of long cylindrical cells known as fibers. The fibers contain myosin and actin proteins. These fibers are packed in bundles by a skin known as perimysium. They are the most developed muscles of all the three types. The fibers are greatly interconnected in all directions. These muscles require oxygen to normally function. They cosume a lot of energy. This energy is normally made by the adenosine triphosphate (ATP). When work load drastically increases in an individual, the amount of oxygen in the blood decreases. This is due to the increased consumption of oxygen. This may cause fatigue and muscle cramps in any individual. Over exercising is also harmful as it leads to accumulation of harmful chemical like lactic acid. These may make the muscles very painful. Cardiac muscles are another type. These are found in the heart. They are involuntary in there nature. Their activities are not controlled by the brain. They determine when and when not to act. Cardiac muscles are very important in any body. They are the thick muscles at the heart that pump blood to the whole body. When they contract, they pump oxygenated blood to all parts of the body. When they relax, they allow deoxygenated blood back into the heart. The heart is able to systemically beat throughout by the help of these muscles. They contract similarly as the skeletal muscles. They have a regular arrangement as skeletal muscles but are less developed than the former. Their regular fibers are connected at the branches unlike the skeletal muscles which are regular and parallel. When stimulated, the striated muscles contracts and relaxes in short and intense bursts. Smooth muscles are found in the stomach, bladder and also in the digestive system. These are also involuntary in nature. When one eats, their contraction and relaxation help the food move into the stomach for digestion. After digestion, they also allow the nutrients to move to different parts of the body. These muscles are also able to push food out of the esophagus from the stomach. This normally occurs when one is sick. This clearly shows the importance of these muscles as without them, ingesting food would be difficult. Moreover, what help us hold urine until we reach the toilet are these muscles. Without them, urine could be passing out without control. Most importantly, the noble task of these muscles is seen during the process of giving birth. They help the expectant mothers push out the babies. When an object tries to enter your eyes, it automatically closes thanks to the smooth muscles which are involuntarily at work. These musclees are not as developed as the skeletal muscles. They only bundles of thick and thin filaments. When they contract, the shortening takes place in all directions. At this time, the thin filaments slide past thick filaments. The intermediate filaments help in drawing them together. The contractions are controlled by calcium ions and are longer and sustained than all other muscles. In conclusion, the importance of the muscles can never be over emphasized. They control almost all the activities of the body. They respond accordingly as per the stimulus. This has enabled the efficiency of their work. It should be taken into consideration that these muscles require energy. Therefore, proper feeding of the body with foods that provide calories is very essential. They use the oxygen from the blood to breakdown glucose into energy. This the energy used to respond to different stimulations. Over straining the muscles are also not advisable. This expends all the glucose thereby depriving the muscles the required energy for action. This is a major problem for the skeletal muscles that use much energy.This table shows an experiment on the threshold stimulus when different workloads are applied on different skeletal muscles. The results show different outcomes for each the muscles. Every muscle exhibits a different figure. This shows that as the workload increases on the s keletal muscles, the threshold stimulus also increases at different rates. In this case volts stand for the threshold of stimulation. An increase in workload increases the skeletal stimulation. But there is a limit that the skeletal muscle can withstand. At the maximum load of 80 grams, lower forelimb and calf muscles are indicated NONE. This shows an overload to these muscles. They cannot withstand these loads. The stimulation does not produce any effect. Thigh muscles are the strongest here as they can be stimulated by a higher load. The breakdown of ATP produces the necessary energy for muscle to act. Example of attenuation of Vo2/W above the ventilatory threshold (VT) in one subject after the six week electrical stimulation (ES) programme. Vo2/W is the slope of the relation between oxygen uptake (Vo2) and power output. Buy custom Muscle Stimulation essay

Make Potassium Nitrate From Lite Salt and a Cold Pack

Make Potassium Nitrate From Lite Salt and a Cold Pack Make potassium nitrate (saltpeter) from common household ingredients. Potassium chloride from salt substitute  and ammonium nitrate from a cold pack are reacted to yield potassium nitrate and ammonium chloride. This is an easy way to make your own potassium chloride if you cant find it in a store or just want to try a fun chemistry experiment. Potassium Nitrate Ingredients 40 g ammonium nitrate (from an instant cold pack which has ammonium nitrate listed as its ingredient)37 g potassium chloride (sold as a salt substitute, with potassium chloride listed as the only ingredient)100 ml water You should be able to find the ingredients at a grocery store or general store. Cold packs that work using ammonium nitrate contain two pouches. One is filled with water, while the other contains solid ammonium nitrate. Potassium chloride is a common salt substitute, used by people trying to cut their sodium intake. Its sold with table salt and other spices. While its fine if there is an anti-caking chemical, youll want to avoid lite salt containing both potassium chloride and sodium chloride because youll end up with a mixture of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate from the chemical reaction. The Chemical Reaction Aqueous solutions of ammonium nitrate and potassium chloride are reacted to exchange the ions and form potassium nitrate and ammonium chloride. The ammonium chloride is much more soluble in water than the potassium nitrate, so you will get potassium nitrate crystals, which can be separated from the ammonium chloride solution. The chemical equation for the reaction is: NH4NO3 KCl → KNO3 NH4Cl Make Potassium Nitrate Dissolve 40 g of ammonium nitrate into 100 ml of water.Filter the solution through a coffee filter to remove any undissolved material.Heat the solution with 37 g potassium chloride to dissolve the lite salt. Do not boil the solution.Filter the solution and either set it in the freezer to chill or else put it in an ice bath so you can observe the crystallization of the potassium nitrate.Pour off the ammonium chloride solution, leaving the potassium nitrate crystals. You can recover the ammonium chloride, too, if you like.Once the potassium nitrate crystals are dry, you can use them for chemistry experiments. The resulting potassium nitrate does contain impurities, but it will work fine for pyrotechnics projects and other experiments described on this site. Examples of Potassium Nitrate Science Projects Perhaps the simplest project you can perform with potassium nitrate is producing purple fire. The purple color results from the excitation of the potassium ion. You could also mix potassium nitrate with alcohol to make a colored fire spray bottle.Potassium nitrate is a key ingredient in a homemade storm glass, which produces crystals in response to atmospheric conditions.Mix potassium nitrate with sugar to make a homemade smoke bomb.Coat paper with a mixture of potassium nitrate and water, let it dry, and apply a match to write a message using fire.Potassium nitrate is used to make black powder.

The Pacific Theater of World War II Research Paper

The Pacific Theater of World War II - Research Paper Example At the time, the US was not so active in world politics, but Japanese assumed US inclusion in the future. The surprise attack began on a Sunday morning on 7 December 1941, with layers of Japanese bombers and fighter aircrafts intended to destroy the Pacific Fleet in the harbor as well as US aircrafts on nearby fields. The attack destroyed three main battleships, three destroyers and one mine laying ship according to the initial reports by the Secretary of Navy. Furthermore, 72 aircrafts including bombers and fighters were destroyed along with 128 damaged. Casualties were near 2,400 which mostly included armed personnel.2 The attack achieved its objective of destroying most of the fleet and the damages bought Japanese some time to secure footholds in Pacific without interference from the US. The attack pulled US into the war and it is referred as the opening of the Pacific front. The Pearl Harbor was one of many targets across the Pacific that formed part of a very large offensive lau nched on 8 December 1941 by the Japanese. Thailand was invaded within a day and Hong Kong within three weeks. US forces stationed in Guam and the Wake Island surrendered to the ground offensive. Furthermore, Malaya was taken from the British rule within two months. This initial offensive launched on the 7 and 8 December 1941 was extremely successful campaign. The Japanese controlled the region and dominated the Pacific without major threats. The victories in Malaya as well as Thailand provided launching pads to establish air superiority in surrounding region. British battleship Prince of Wales was sunk by Japanese bombers launched from bases in Malaya. Almost a month after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese started... The Pearl Harbor was one of many targets across the Pacific that formed part of a very large offensive launched on 8 December 1941 by the Japanese. Thailand was invaded within a day and Hong Kong within three weeks. US forces stationed in Guam and the Wake Island surrendered to the ground offensive. Furthermore, Malaya was taken from the British rule within two months. This initial offensive launched on the 7 and 8 December 1941 was an extremely successful campaign. The Japanese controlled the region and dominated the Pacific without major threats. The victories in Malaya, as well as Thailand, provided launching pads to establish air superiority in surrounding region. British battleship Prince of Wales was sunk by Japanese bombers launched from bases in Malaya.Almost a month after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese started to consolidate their position by securing strategic assets in the region. Tarakan and Manado fell within days of invasion; Tarakan was rich in oil fields and a s trategic airfield, whereas Manado provided control of the Minahasa peninsula that could be used to approach Australia. In the same time period, invasion of Burma started on 15 January 1942 along with invasions for Singapore and New Guinea. British Commonwealth forces retreated from Burma and Singapore fell to Japanese in almost a month. By the first six months, Japanese controlled the Pacific from Burma in the west, Singapore in the south, New Guinea in the east and numerous islands in between.