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 foreseeable that the absence of a screen may leave the way open to injury to the driver. A consideration of the degree of risk involved in the absence of a screen is also necessary in assessing suitability’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice May Lord Justice Pill
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1856
Links:
Statutes:
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pennington 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189921
