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 sufficient.
Held: The employer’s appeal failed (majority). The employer had given inadequate training. The judge had been wrong to find the equipment itelf unsuitable, but the employer’s view that a firefighter should be expected to put his own health and safety before that of an accident victim was quite unacceptable: ‘The implication is that the respondent ought not to have taken over from the leading hand and should not have attempted to save the driver’s life. The respondent had no opportunity to assess what equipment ought to be used; if the rescue attempt was to continue, it had to be with the 1040 ram. Not only is it unrealistic to conclude that the respondent should not have continued with the rescue attempt but the judge found that he did what was expected of him. On the evidence, the respondent acted reasonably. ‘ The claimant took over where the previous firefighter had chosen the equipment, but had become exhausted. He had no choice other than to use equipment on which he had not been trained, and that unfamiliarity with the equipment was causative. The pinch point on the ram was a dangerous part: ‘In the stressful circumstances undoubtedly present at the material time, the absence of training and experience in handling the additional weight substantially increased the risk of the type of injury which occurred, a slip of the hand while manoeuvring the ram in a confined space.’
Judges:
Pill LJ, Arden LJ, Neuberger LJ
Citations:
[20061 EWCA Civ 1493
Links:
Statutes:
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 4 11
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 – Yorkshire Traction Company Limited v Searby CA 19-Dec-2003
Buses had not been fitted with safety screens protecting drivers from possible assaults by passengers.
Held: There was no breach of regulation 4: ‘… It does not follow that liability is established simply by showing that it is reasonably . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd HL 1967
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act.
Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.245991
