Site icon swarb.co.uk

Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Ltd: CA 12 Mar 2003

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:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 4 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPennington 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 . .
CitedRobb 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

Exit mobile version