Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Practice NEBOSH Questions For Chapter 1: All Questions 8 Marks Unless Otherwise Stated
Practice NEBOSH Questions For Chapter 1: All Questions 8 Marks Unless Otherwise Stated
Page 1 of 5
the majority found it extremely difficult to differentiate between the two types of law. As
well as the confusion between types and sources of law, fundamental errors were also
noted on other issues, such as the imposition of fines in civil courts and civil cases being
heard in a magistrates court. Many candidates, too, displayed a lack of good examination
technique, producing lists when the question clearly required an outline.
Page 2 of 5
injury. In the latter case, a breach need not have occurred for the notice to be served. As
a point of accuracy, a number of answers included the phrase 'imminent risk' even
though the word 'imminent' does not appear in the relevant section of the Act.
From the general standard of answers, it would appear that enforcement of health and
safety legislation is an area that is well addressed on courses.
Question 5 (Q.10 from June 2001 A2 paper)
Outline the general duties placed on employees by:
(i) the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
(ii) the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
Examiners were surprised that many candidates did not appear to possess a basic
knowledge of the key requirements of health and safety law necessary to answer this
question. In general, the duties under sections 7 and 8 of the Health and Safety at Work
Act were better known, or perhaps came to mind more readily, than those contained in
regulation 14 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.
For part (i), section 7 requires employees to take reasonable care for themselves and
others who might be affected by their acts or omissions, and to co-operate with their
employer or other person so far as is necessary to enable them to comply with their own
statutory duties and requirements. Section 8 (which in fact applies to all persons and not
just employees) requires that no-one shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or
misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare.
Regulation 14 of the 'Management' Regulations, on the other hand, requires employees to
use all work items in accordance with the training and instructions that they have been
given. Regulation 14 also requires employees to inform their employer (or a specified
employee with health and safety responsibilities) of work situations that could present a
serious and immediate danger, as well as any shortcomings that they might reasonably
recognise in the existing arrangements for health and safety.
It was disappointing to note that some candidates did not give sufficient attention to the
wording of the question and provided outlines of the duties of employers rather than
employees.
Question 6 (Q.4 from December 2000 A2 paper)
(a) Explain THREE possible defences to a civil law claim of negligence.
(b) State the circumstances in which an employer may be held vicariously liable for the
negligence of an employee.
In answering part (a), candidates seemed to fall into two distinct groups: those who knew
the defences to a civil law claim for negligence and those who had no knowledge of this
important area of law. Those who did possess knowledge of this topic could be further
sub-divided into those who stated or merely listed the defences, and those who complied
with the requirement of the question and explained them.
Page 3 of 5
The majority of successful candidates explained the standard defences that no duty of
care was owed to the injured party, that the duty was not breached and that the injury
or loss sustained was not caused directly by the breach. Other possibilities included the
voluntary acceptance of the risk by the claimant ('volenti non fit injuria') - although this
would be unusual in an employer/employee case - and the partial defence of
contributory negligence. Those who mentioned that everything reasonable was done, that
the harm was not reasonably foreseeable or that the harm was caused by an `act of God',
as part of the standard defences, were few and far between.
Many candidates found difficulty in stating the circumstances surrounding an employer's
vicarious liability. The two conditions that must be established are that the employee was
acting within the course of his employment and, while doing so, negligently caused
damage or injury to a third party.
Question 7 (Q.8 from December 2000 A2 paper)
(a) Explain the meaning of the phrase `so far as is reasonably practicable'.
(b) State the general and specific duties of employers under section 2 of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974
Most candidates found little difficulty with part (a) and were able to offer an answer
based on the balance of risk against cost.
Part (b) offered candidates with knowledge of section 2 of the HSW Act the opportunity to
obtain the full six marks available. Most candidates were able to quote the general duty
to ensure (so far as is reasonably practicable) the health, safety and welfare of employees
but a significant number were unable to demonstrate knowledge beyond this and instead
introduced requirements of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations
1999, such as the need to carry out risk assessments. Those who were familiar with
section 2, on the other hand, could refer to the specific duties to provide and maintain
safe plant and systems of work, to ensure the safe use, storage, handling and transport
of articles and substances, and to provide and maintain a safe workplace, including
access and egress. Others made proper reference to the provision of a safe working
environment with adequate welfare facilities, and to the provision of information,
instruction, training and supervision. Fewer seemed aware, or able to bring to mind, that
section 2 extends beyond the first two subsections and continues with the requirements
to prepare and revise a health and safety policy, to consult with employee representatives
and to establish a safety committee when required to do so.
Candidates were not expected to identify particular subsections by number in their
answers and were not penalised if they were unable to do so.
Question 8 (Q.4 from March 2000 A2 paper)
(a) Define the term negligence.
(b) Outline the THREE standard conditions that must be met for an employee to prove a
case of negligence against an employer.
Page 4 of 5
For part (a), many candidates found it difficult to provide a clear definition of negligence,
which could have been described as a tort involving unreasonably careless conduct, or a
breach of the common law duty of care, resulting in loss, damage or injury.
In answering part (b), most candidates provided reasonable answers that identified the
standard conditions for an employee to prove a case of alleged negligence. These are:
firstly, that a duty of care was owed by the employer (ie that the employee was acting in
the course of his/her employment); secondly, that the employer acted in breach of that
duty; and, thirdly, that the breach led directly to the loss, damage or injury. Better
candidates were able to support their answers with examples and, in many cases, by
appropriate reference to reasonableness and foreseeability.
Despite some difficulties with part (a), a number of candidates obtained high marks for
their answers to this question. They clearly had studied and understood the basic legal
concepts involved.
Question 9 (Q.11 from March 2000 A2 paper)
List the powers given to inspectors appointed under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act
1974.
Section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 provides the main source of
information to answer this question and most candidates were able to list enough powers
available to appointed inspectors to gain high marks. The powers include: the right to
enter premises, if necessary by enlisting the assistance of a police officer; to carry out
examinations and investigations; to direct that premises or equipment be left
undisturbed for the purpose of investigations; to take measurements and photographs; to
inspect and/or take copies of documents and records; to take samples; to require a
person to answer questions and sign a declaration to the truth of his/her answers; to
take possession of articles and substances; to issue enforcement notices; and to instigate
and conduct proceedings in a magistrates court (except in Scotland).
Question 10 (Q.10 from June 1999 A2 paper)
(a) Outline the main functions of:
(i) criminal law
(ii) civil law.
(b) Outline the THREE standard conditions that must be met for an employee to prove a
case of negligence against an employer.
For part (a), candidates should have identified that criminal law sets a code of conduct
for society, normally has a protective function and allows the state to take action against
those who break the code. Civil law, on the other hand, has the function of enabling an
individual who has suffered harm to gain appropriate recompense, or to seek an
injunction to prevent harm occurring.
Part (b) needed an explanation of the principal differences between common and statute
law. Successful candidates were those who explained that common law is not written
Page 5 of 5
down but has been developed by the courts over many years and, in the area of health
and safety, forms the basis of most civil actions. Statute law, on the other hand, is
written down in the form of Acts and Regulations, lays down requirements and assigns
duties and responsibilities. Failure to comply with statute law normally (but not always)
constitutes a criminal offence, although it can also be used in civil actions unless
specifically disallowed.
Criminal and civil law and common and statute law undoubtedly form an important part
of the tuition given by course providers but they still remain a source of confusion for
many candidates. This was particularly evident in several cases where candidates
answered part (b) as if common law and civil law were the same - and similarly for
statute law and criminal law. The differences between branches of law and sources of law
are not difficult concepts to understand, yet the concepts are plainly often not
understood. This is an area that requires even more emphasis by centres.
Page 6 of 5