Doherty and others v Rugby Joinery (UK) Limited: CA 17 Feb 2004

The claimant had used a sander, and been injured with vibration induced white finger syndrome. The employee appealed against a finding of non-liability saying the company should have known of the risk.
Held: It had become accepted that use of such equipment for more than a certain time each day would be dangerous. The defendant in fact did not know of the danger. Any liability would rely upon a finding of constructive knowledge. Knowledge of the danger had been disseminated only from 1990, and none of the employer’s duties were triggered before 1991.
Hale LJ said that there is: ‘a distinction between holding that a reasonable employer should have been aware of the risks and holding that certain steps should have been taken to meet that risk’.
Lord Justice Auld, Lady Justice Hale, Mr Justice Wilson
[2004] EWCA Civ 147, Times 03-Mar-2004, [2004] ICR 1272
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.193924