Personal injury lawBy Simon Allen, Russell Jones & Walker, SheffieldSlipping at workKing v RCO Support Services Ltd and Yorkshire Traction Company Ltd, Court of Appeal, 8 December 2000, Lords Justice Kay and HenryThis decision by Lord Justice Kay considers the seasonal risk of an employee slipping on ice at work.

Mr King was tasked to spread grit over a large icy yard from a pile in the yard using a barrow and shovel.

He did the task for almost two hours before inadvertently stepping off the gritted area onto the ice and slipping, suffering injury.

Of interest is his Lordship's finding that the task was a manual handling operation under the Manual Handling Operation Regulations 1992 and as the defendants had not pleaded 'reasonable practicability' under reg 4 (i) they were found liable.

His Lordship 'assumed' that the means of a mechanical gritter was available to them.On the important question of contributory negligence, the claimant was found to be only 50% to blame.

Although he was responsible for the job he had to perform, the 'risk of injury' arose due to the length of the task and the likelihood of his concentration understandably wandering.

It is this point which is of interest.

If a surface needs cleaning/gritting, and the employer sets an employee to reasonably carry out the task, the argument is what more can he do? Clearly now, risk assessment of the task of cleaning should include consideration of the length of the task and the need to maintain the employee's concentration.

Furness v Midland Bank Plc, 10 November 2000, Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Sir Christopher SladeThe claimant slipped on a few ten pence sized droplets of water that were present on the tiles of an otherwise non-slippery staircase in her office.

There was no history of spillages and no one knew where the water had come from.

The case considered reg 12(iii) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the duty of an employer, so far as is reasonably practicable, to keep floors free from any substances which are likely to cause a person to slip.

The claimant failed.

Her argument was that, although the defendants did 'periodic inspections' and the floor was cleaned daily, they ought to have instructed their workforce to look out for spillages and clean them up or report them immediately.Sir Christopher Slade said that it was 'absurd' to think such an instruction would serve any useful purpose in an office environment particularly as there was no history of spillages.

Importantly, when the public is involved, the court identified that a different standard applies (see Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810, CA).

In supermarkets, at least, the court felt that staff should be instructed to keep a watchful eye for such spillages.

These two cases identify the importance of the defence of reasonable practicability.

This concept, which was not included in the European Directives which were the foundation on which the regulations were built, remains in the UK and demonstrates that in the law at least we are not yet truly European.