Manual Handling Injury Claim

Jones V Draka Wire Uk Ltd (2003)

The employer had neither been negligent or in breach of his statutory duties under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 SI 1992/2793 concerning the employee's accident at work.

Employment - Negligence - Personal Injury

Swansea County Court (Deputy District Judge Nicholson) 19/9/2003

LTL 7/11/2003 (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC0106009

Claim by an employee ('C') against his employer ('D') in negligence and breach of statutory duty in relation to the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 SI 1992/2793 for damages for a work related accident. C had been employed by D for 17 years. The accident happened whilst C was engaged in an operation which required him to release three large bolts using a pneumatic wrench of gun. There was a particular device called a "counterbalance" which could be used in order to take the weight of the gun so that an employee using the gun would not be required to lift it or put it back down.

C having successfully removed the gun from the hook where it was kept, attempted to replace the gun by holding his hands outstretched and twisting his trunk, keeping his feet and legs in a static position. C did not deny that he broke two safety rules which he had been trained to observe, firstly by holding the equipment too far away from his body and secondly by twisting his trunk as he was holding it. C alleged that D had:

(i) failed to ensure that the counterbalancing pulling mechanism was attached to the pneumatic device;

(ii) failed until after the accident happened to fit the counterbalancing pulling mechanism;

(iii) failed to heed a similar accident befalling another employee four years previous;

(iv) failed to provide C with any or proper training or instruction;

(v) required C to lift a weight which was beyond his capabilities;

(vi) failed to provide C with work in accordance with his written notification of a pre-existing back problem; (vii) breached reg.4.1

(a) of the Regulations in failing to avoid the need for C to carry out the said manual handling operation;

(viii) failed to provide any or adequate assistance;

(ix) failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment in breach of reg.4.1(b)

(i) of the Regulations; and

(x) failed to take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to C to the lowest level reasonably practicable in breach of reg.4.1(b)

HELD: (1) The counterbalance was not an essential piece of equipment for the safe use of a gun and therefore its absence or presence was not an indication that the employers in this case had been negligent or in breach of their duty under the Regulations.

(2) There was no evidence to indicate that the two accidents referred to were comparable nor was there any evidence that D needed to take any particular action which could have avoided C's accident some four years later.

(3) C did not need any specific training to use the gun.

(4) The task of lifting the gun was not unduly strenuous and the frequency of use was within the figure used in the Health and Safety Executive Guidance of 30 operations per hour.

(5) D did accommodate C and did not require him to carry out any work that was inherently dangerous in the light of the back problem that he had disclosed to them.

(6) There was no breach of reg.4.1(a), reg.4.1(b)(i) or reg.4(b)(ii) Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 SI 1992/2793.

(7) D had taken all reasonable steps and nothing further was required. In all the circumstances D was neither negligent nor in breach of their statutory duties under the Regulations.

Claim dismissed.