HEALTH AND SAFETY

Employee claiming damages for personal injury - alleged breach of work equipment regulations - employer not liable for unforeseeable violent act of third party

Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd: CA (Lord Justice Mantell, Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Bodey): 8 November 2002

The employee was injured when a scaffolding tower on which he was working was upset by the violent act of an angry fellow employee.

His claim against the defendant employer for damages for personal injuries was based in part on the employer's alleged breaches of the duties under regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2932) to ensure that the scaffolding tower was 'so constructed or adapted as to be suitable for' its purpose in 'any respect which it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health or safety of any person' and under regulation 20 that 'work equipment is stabilised'.

His claim was dismissed by the county court and he appealed.

Gareth Evans QC and Adam Farrer (instructed by Hadens, Hednesford) for the claimant.

Stephen Grime QC and John Parr (instructed by Grindeys, Stoke-on-Trent) for the defendant.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that in considering the suitability of equipment provided by an employer pursuant to the 1992 regulations, the court was entitled to take into account the extent to which the hazard sought to be avoided was reasonably foreseeable; that it would realistically only be necessary to stabilise the scaffolding with outriggers, as suggested by the claimant, where the mischief to be guarded against was reasonably foreseeable; and that an employer was not liable for breach of duty where the equipment he provided was only unsafe against the extraneous, unpredictable and violent act of a third party (ICR).

See [2002] Gazette, 28 November, 31.