The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages after he was injured at work. He claimed he had been asked to work in breach of the Regulations.
Held: It was easy but wrong to conflate the issues of causation and forseeability. The judge had so erred. The issue of causation should be tested only once the question of whether there had been a breach of the Regulations, had first been answered. The Regulations asked about tasks performed regularly. This was not a question about each particular lifting task, but about each kind of task. The employers were required to do what was necessary to reduce the risk to the lowest practicable level.
Judges:
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Nelson
Citations:
Times 09-Sep-2002, Gazette 17-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1139, [2003] ICR 222
Links:
Statutes:
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793) 4(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services 19-May-2000
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Cox v Ministry of Justice CA 19-Feb-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury. While working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175057