Employers' liability – and their duty to keep floors and passages free

After slipping on coolant fluid, M sought damages of £4,500 from his employer L, a bus company, in respect of a minor hand and wrist injury sustained at work. M, a new employee, who was an experienced mechanic bul had not previously worked with buses, slipped and fell on coolant fluid which had been spilled on a board laid across a pit. M submitted that (1) the accident occurred when he was working alone and unsupervised on 14 April 2002; (2) the coolant was spilled by the previous fitter, who had left insufficient drainage receptacles to catch the fluid when he disconnected a hose from a bus s coolant system; (3) L had breached regs 12(3), 5(1) and 13(1) of ihe 1992 Regulations. L submitted that (1) the accident had occurred earlier than M claimed: M's GP had recorded it together with another accident but had entered only 11 April in his records; (2) the coolant was spilled by M,who failed to use drainage receptacles to catch it; (3) L had done all that could be reasonably expected, by providing receptacles, absorbent granules and cleaning equipment for the inevitable spillages, entrusting the work to an apparently experienced mechanic and having a system whereby at weekends, fillers cleaned up spillages themselves; (4) given M's sole fault, L could not be found liable in damages; and (5) M's contributory negligence should he addressed ai a high degree, possibly 100 percent.

Decision: Granting decree in M’s favour for the sum of £1,125 that (1) the accident occurred on 14 April 2002. L had founded solely on the appearance of the GP's records, but the GP was not led as a witness at the proof and the only relevant averment in the joint minute was that the records were what they bore to be. Accordingly, the records themselves were not admissible evidence of the accuracy of their contents where the joint minute was silent on the matter, Lenaghan v Ayrshire and Arran Health Board, 1994 SLT 165, followed. (2) On the balance of probabilities, M had spilled the coolant and at the material time there was no receptacle in place lo catches it as it emerged after the disconnection of the hose. (3) A breach of reg 12(3) had arisen: L's arrangements for such work were less than satisfactory and they had failed to convince the court that the offending spillage and the resulting accident could not reasonably practicably have been avoided; and subject to contributory negligence, L were liable in damages lo M for the accident which he sustained.

Observed, that had it been necessary to consider regs 5(1) and 13(1) neither would have been held to have been breached. (4) In the whole circumstances M had to bear the major share of responsibility for what had happened and contributory negligence should be, assessed at 75 per cent.

Employers' liability - Manual handling operations

A process worker - H, a process worker (aged 47 at proof), raised an action of damages against G, her employer, for personal injuries, namely an aggravation of carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist, which she claimed was caused by the trussing of chicken carcasses. The action proceeded lo proof, at which it was established that this process consisted of lifting the carcass from a hook, placing it on a workbench, tying the wings and legs with trussing siring, and placing the carcass onto a conveyor belt. H developed carpal tunnel syndrome in her right hand in 1994 and visited her doctor before March 2001 when she noticed similar symptoms in her left hand. H had an operation on her left hand in March 2001 and was off work for around 16 weeks, during which lime she required help from her family in carrying out personal and household tasks for around seven weeks. H argued that the entire operation of trussing was a single manual handling operation as it involved one relatively short movement, thus invoking the 1992 Regulations. G argued that the process in which H was involved was not a manual handling operation, and that in any event she had failed to prove that the operation had caused an exacerbation of her symptoms.

Decision: Dismissing the action, that (1) on the evidence heard, there was a sufficient causal link between H's work on the trussing line and the exacerbation of her symptoms. (2) When M’s services claim was a small part, his injuries were set forth as were the various tasks which he could not now do, three women were identified as his helpers at various times and a jury would be able to apportion any award among them.