The claimant had become sensitive to latex dust while working for the first employer, then suffered an anaphylactic shock when coming into contact with the dust while employed by the second.
Held: The regulations required that ‘every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employee to a substance hazardous to health is either prevented, or where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.’ The words were clear. The duty was absolute except for reasonable practicality, when the duty was simply to ensure adequate protection. There was no limitation on the second limb to allow for relative risk, or reasonable practicality.
Judges:
Tuckey, Hale, LJJ, Sir Denis Hale
Citations:
Times 09-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1689
Links:
Statutes:
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1657), Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3246), Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 (1999 No 437) 7
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stokes v Guest Keen and Nettlefold (Nuts and Bolts) Ltd QBD 1968
An employee had been exposed at work over a long period to mineral oil which, on a daily basis, had saturated his clothing and come into contact with his skin. As a result of this he developed cancer of the scrotum from which he eventually died. The . .
Cited – Bilton v Fastnet Highlands LTd OHCS 20-Nov-1997
It was for the defenders to say what steps they had been taken to comply with their obligations under the Regulations, not for an employee complainant to say what should happen. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178361