Allison - v - London Underground Ltd
| Claimant | Ms Latona Allison | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job title | Train Driver (SOC 2000: 3514) | ||||||||||
| Task description | Use of hand-held Traction Brake Controller (TBC) while driving a Jubilee Line Underground train | ||||||||||
| Injury | Tenosynovitis of the flexor pollicus longus (FPL) tendon sheath of the right thumb | ||||||||||
| Defendant(s) | London Underground Ltd (SIC 2007: H49.31/1) | ||||||||||
| Court(s) | Central London County | ||||||||||
| Case No. | 5CL80185 | ||||||||||
| Date | 25 Jan 2007 | ||||||||||
| Judge(s) | His Honour Judge Cowell | ||||||||||
| For Claimant | |||||||||||
| All Claimants | Ms Latona Allison | ||||||||||
| Solicitor | Thompsons | ||||||||||
| Counsel | Ms Freya Newbery | ||||||||||
| Non-Medical expert(s) | Mr John Ridd (Ergonomics) | ||||||||||
| Medical expert(s) | Dr Alastair G Mowat (Rheumatology) (Not called) | ||||||||||
| For Defendant | |||||||||||
| Solicitor | Kennedys (EC1Y 4TW) | ||||||||||
| Counsel | Mr George Alliott | ||||||||||
| Non-Medical expert(s) | Dr Elizabeth de Mello (Ergonomics) | ||||||||||
| Medical expert(s) | Mr Rupert Eckersley (Orthopaedic & Hand Surgery) (Not called) | ||||||||||
| Outcome | |||||||||||
| Judgment for: | Defendant | ||||||||||
| Injury found: | Agreed | ||||||||||
| Work related: | Agreed | ||||||||||
| Breach of Statutory Duty: | No | ||||||||||
| Defendant negligent: | No | ||||||||||
| Damages | |||||||||||
| General: | |||||||||||
| Special: | |||||||||||
| Other: | |||||||||||
| TOTAL: | |||||||||||
| Observations | |||||||||||
| References | |||||||||||
| References to and/or Interpretations of Regulations and HSE Guidance Documents | |||||||||||
| In the County Court Judgment on the 25th January 2007, at paragraph 2, HH Judge Cowell states: The statutory duties relied upon being first at paragraph 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the breach of which may amount to negligence; and paragraph 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, which concerns equipment used at work; and, thirdly, paragraph 9(1) of the last mentioned Regulations, which concerns adequate training in the use of work equipment. Much of the Court of Appeal Judgment in this claim explores the duty imposed by regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, which in this case was closely linked to whether the risk assessment under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations was suitable and sufficient. The degree of foresight the Court of Appeal appear to have expected of the Defendant may come as a surprise to many. There are also references to regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, but no references to any HSE guidance documents. 3.01 | |||||||||||
| Regulations |
| ||||||||||
Click below for other cases in similar categories
Tenosynovitis | Operating equipment/machine/controls | SOC Major Group 3 | SIC Major Classification H
Amend or add to this case | Add a new case report
Last updated: 16/10/2009