The court considered the effect of the regulations: ‘Regulation 4 and indeed 5 are concerned with the physical condition of the equipment on the assumption that they will be properly operated by properly trained and instructed personnel.’ A risk assessment was relevant to the identification of what the employer should have done.
Judges:
Clarke LJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 412
Links:
Statutes:
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 4 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pennington v Surrey County Council and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service CA 9-Nov-2006
The claimant firefighter crushed a finger trying to release a traffic accident victim with a heavy machine for expanding gaps in metal. The defendant appealed on liability. The court was asked whether a simple warning of the possible danger was . .
Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181145
