The pursuer, a teacher slipped on a potato chip on a ramp leading from the school kitchen.
Held: Given the nature of the flooring and the slope of the ramp there was a real risk of slipping, which was increased by the presence of the chip. The defenders were in breach of an absolute duty under regulation 5(1). Regulation 12(3) had also been infringed in that the chip presented a real risk of injury, and it would have been reasonably practicable for the defenders to have kept the surface free of such dangerous substances.
J Gordon Reid QC said that it is ‘common in personal injury litigation for a set of circumstances to fall within the scope of several parts of the same regulations or even within the scope of several different sets of regulations.’
Judges:
J Gordon Reid QC
Citations:
[2003] ScotCS 302, 2004 Rep Lr 40
Links:
Statutes:
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(1) 12(3)
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
See Also – Gilmour v East Renfrewshire Council SCS 29-May-2002
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009
Safety Duty on Employer was not Absolute
The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190765