Workplace injuries sometimes occur whilst an employee is carrying out a task that they have performed perfectly safely on numerous prior occasions. The success of employee claims in such circumstances will depend on the foreseeability of the injury, relevant risk assessments and the quality of the training provided by the employer.
A recent case, brought against Monarch Airlines under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, illustrates the point that the lack of a risk assessment need not be fatal to the defence of an injury claim, providing it can be demonstrated that carrying out a risk assessment would not have made any difference in the circumstances.
Katherine Dryden, who had worked for Monarch Airlines as a cabin crew member for more than five years, brought a claim against the company after she suffered injuries to her back and neck trying to close the rear door of an aircraft. The door in question was particularly stiff.
Ms Dryden claimed that the company had failed in its duty to minimise the risk of injury and had neither carried out an adequate risk assessment of the task nor provided adequate training. She alleged that the company was attempting to delegate its duty of care as an employer by expecting staff to carry out 'on-the-spot' risk assessments as to whether or not they could safely close the aircraft doors.
Monarch Airlines admitted that it was down to each cabin crew member to judge whether they could carry out the task safely. However, during training they were instructed to seek help closing the door if necessary and this instruction was also included in the written manual.
The Court found in favour of the airline. Although it was reasonably foreseeable that employees would have to cope with the problem of aircraft doors that were stiff, the judge found that the completion of a more detailed risk assessment would not have made any material difference to the outcome in this case. Ms Dryden was an experienced crew member who had carried out the same task on numerous occasions without mishap. A risk assessment would merely have stated the obvious - i.e. if a door is unusually stiff, there is a greater risk of strain injury.
The Court concluded that the training provided was not at fault and it was not unreasonable to expect Ms Dryden to carry out an on-the-spot risk assessment because no one else could have done so at that time.
Says Steve Santy, "Employers have an ongoing duty of care towards their employees to ensure that workplace practices, tools and equipment are safe. Risks should be assessed and an evaluation carried out to decide whether more needs to be done to eliminate or reduce them. Employees should be trained in the safe use of any equipment and their training kept up-to-date. However, as this case illustrates, employers who have acted responsibly in all these regards should be able to rely on experienced employees to exercise a degree of common sense when judging whether or not it is safe to carry out a particular task."
For help and advice, please contact Steve on 0121 698 2200 or via email to s.santy@sydneymitchell.co.uk.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
