Bennetts V Ministry Of Defence (2004)

The defendant employer had not breached the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 as there was no real risk that the claimant would injure herself as she had done so carrying out an abnormal procedure.

The claimant (B) appealed the decision of a recorder that the defendant (M) had not breached the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and had not caused B's injury. B was employed by M and worked in a mailroom sorting mail. The normal procedure for sorting mail was to push the mail bags onto the mailroom floor and then sort through the post. On one occasion B decided to empty a mail bag by lifting it up and turning it over. In the course of lifting the mail bag B injured her back. After the accident M carried out a detailed risk assessment on mail-handling.

That assessment found that there was an overall medium risk of employees injuring themselves sorting mail but that the risk was confined to stooping and excessive load-carrying. C subsequently brought the current proceedings against M. B contended that M was in breach of the 1992 regulations.

The recorder found that B had injured herself by attempting to free the mailbag from a trolley that it had snagged when she attempted to lift it. She held that there was no breach of the regulations as there was no real risk that B would injure herself and that even if there was a breach of the regulations that breach would not have caused the injury in the instant case as B had carried out an abnormal procedure to empty the mailbag. B submitted that the recorder had erred in finding that there was no real risk of injury to her and that in the absence of training it was reasonably foreseeable that a person could adopt an unusual system of lifting mailbags.

HELD: The recorder had not erred in law. In making an assessment of manual handling operations under the regulations there had to be an element of realism. The question of what involved a risk of injury was context-based and in the instant case there was no causal link between the absence of training and B's injury. Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services (2000) PIQR 123 considered.

Appeal dismissed.

Health And Safety - Employment - Personal Injury

CA (Carnwath LJ, Rix LJ) 16/3/2004

LTL 16/3/2004 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC9609629

Bennetts V Ministry Of Defence (2004)

The defendant employer had not breached the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 as there was no real risk that the claimant would injure herself as she had done so carrying out an abnormal procedure.

The claimant (B) appealed the decision of a recorder that the defendant (M) had not breached the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and had not caused B's injury. B was employed by M and worked in a mailroom sorting mail. The normal procedure for sorting mail was to push the mail bags onto the mailroom floor and then sort through the post. On one occasion B decided to empty a mail bag by lifting it up and turning it over. In the course of lifting the mail bag B injured her back. After the accident M carried out a detailed risk assessment on mail-handling.

That assessment found that there was an overall medium risk of employees injuring themselves sorting mail but that the risk was confined to stooping and excessive load-carrying. C subsequently brought the current proceedings against M. B contended that M was in breach of the 1992 regulations.

The recorder found that B had injured herself by attempting to free the mailbag from a trolley that it had snagged when she attempted to lift it. She held that there was no breach of the regulations as there was no real risk that B would injure herself and that even if there was a breach of the regulations that breach would not have caused the injury in the instant case as B had carried out an abnormal procedure to empty the mailbag. B submitted that the recorder had erred in finding that there was no real risk of injury to her and that in the absence of training it was reasonably foreseeable that a person could adopt an unusual system of lifting mailbags.

HELD: The recorder had not erred in law. In making an assessment of manual handling operations under the regulations there had to be an element of realism. The question of what involved a risk of injury was context-based and in the instant case there was no causal link between the absence of training and B's injury. Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services (2000) PIQR 123 considered.

Appeal dismissed.

Health And Safety - Employment - Personal Injury

CA (Carnwath LJ, Rix LJ) 16/3/2004

LTL 16/3/2004 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC9609629