The defendant appealed against finding of liability. The claimant, an officer ar Armley Prison had been redirected to a side entrance. There was a ramp, but at the top was a two inch step. The parties had disputed the exact circumstances of the fall.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The Recorder approached regulation 12(3) by saying simply that he was satisfied that the threshold constituted an obstruction, and that it was therefore for the Home Office to satisfy him that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or remove the threshold, which it had not attempted to do. I consider, as I have said, that the question whether there was an obstruction which ‘may’ cause a person to slip, trip or fall is one which itself involves a balancing of relevant factors relating to the nature and extent of any risk for persons using the floor or traffic route. But the Recorder had already considered such factors in making his assessment under regulation 12(1), and in the light of that assessment I do not think that he can, on the facts of this case, be criticised for proceeding straightaway to a conclusion that there was a relevant obstruction for the purposes of regulation 12(3). I do not see any reason why the unexpected threshold, constituting a step of unusual intermediate height at the top of a ramp, for which there was no apparent reason, should not in law be regarded as an obstruction in the floor or the surface of the traffic route.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Wall
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 985
Links:
Statutes:
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 SI No. 3004, Directive 89/654/EEC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Marks and Spencer plc v Palmer CA 9-Oct-2001
A shopper carrying some heavy bags tripped and fell over a weather strip, which was proud of the floor at an exit door to the extent of some 8 to 9.5 mm high. The recorder had said that, once he was satisfied that the claimant came into contact with . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199736
