Health and safety
In Furness v Midland Bank plc [2000] CA, the Court of Appeal stated that where spillages are frequent and the dangers of slipping are very real it would be necessary for employers to instruct their staff to be particularly alert to spot any danger and to deal with it. There may also be cases where it would be necessary to keep a constant look out and to instruct accordingly. However, where spillages and leakages are almost unheard of and where only employees use the premises it is absurd to think that an instruction to employees to keep an eye open for spillages and either clean them up or report them would in reality serve any useful purpose.
In Puttock v Kodak Ltd (2000) unreported County Court, the county court ruled that an employee was entitled to receive compensation for dermatitis resulting from the absence of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and lack of necessary training.
In Beck v United Closures & Plastics plc [2000] CS, the Court of Session held that doors were not a 'workplace' within the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 but were 'work equipment' for the purposes of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992.
In Wells v West Hertfordshire Health Authority (2000) Current Law 2000/2982, it was ruled that, when informed by an employee of a back problem and medical advice that she should avoid demanding physical work, the employer should have carried out a risk assessment of the employee's tasks and in particular the employee's ability to perform them given her medical condition.
In Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services, the Court of Appeal dismisses a claim under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, in part because the "everyday" nature of the task which caused the injury made it unrealistic to require a risk assessment.
In Carmichael v Marks & Spencer plc S.C.C.R. 781 High Court of Justiciary (Appeal), a criminal prosecution under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, regulation 3, the High Court held that it would be open to the prosecution to prove either that no risk assessment whatever had been made or that an assessment had been made that was not suitable and sufficient. The defendants were entitled to be told the essential features of the prosecution case and in particular upon what basis the prosecution was contending that there had been a contravention of regulation 3.
In Stone v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, a county court awards a police clerk £384,000 for back injuries suffered as a result of her employer's failure to carry out a manual-handling risk assessment or train her in safe lifting.
In Duncanson v South Ayrshire Council [1999] SLT S19 CS, the Court of Session held that a steel cabinet within a nursery was work equipment for the purposes of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992.
In Wenham v Bexley 1999 10 CL 388 CC, a county court held that kitchens are places where floors are likely to get wet and accordingly these should be kept dry to avoid breaches of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
In Rama v South West Trains, the High Court confirms that the test to determine safety representatives' entitlement to paid leave to attend health and safety training is not limited to training that is necessary to enable representatives to fulfil their functions.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to health and safety.