Hislop v Lynx Express Parcels: IHCS 3 Apr 2003

The claimant was injured when, after stopping the vehicle he was driving for his employers, he was scalded when the radiator cap flew off. He appealed against the dismissal of his claim on the basis that he had been unable to show any fault.
Held: The question was not whether a defect could be identified, but whether or not the equipment, the vehicle and its parts, had been maintained in efficient working order and in good repair.


Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Osborne and Lord Weir


Times 17-Apr-2003, [2003] ScotCS 98




Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) 6(1)




CitedMillar v Galashiels Gas Co Ltd; Galashiels Gas Company Ltd v O’Donnell HL 20-Jan-1949
A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act.
Held: The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The . .
CitedStark v Post Office CA 2-Mar-2000
A component in a postman’s bicycle gave way even though the machine had been sensibly maintained and checked. He sought damages for his injuries.
Held: The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183965