A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite.
Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of care which the employer must observe to comply with his duty of care to the employees. The claimant recognised that he could not succeed in proving a breach of the duty of care, and his claim failed.
Waller LJ said: ‘I stress the standard of care will be a high one. Where the employer is asking the employee to wear particular footwear or clothing in place of the employee’s own, I would suggest that rightly the court would impose a high duty on an employer. But in the circumstances of this case the tiny hole was undiscoverable either by the employers or the claimant and the findings of the recorder negatived any such breach.’
Judges:
Waller LJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 874, [2003] ICR 1582
Links:
Statutes:
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc HL 1-Jul-2004
The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc HL 1-Jul-2004
The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184059