WRULD DB-Plaintiff: Michael Anthony Moffitt

Case	Task	Injury	Date	Court	Judgment for
Moffitt - v - Norweb plc	Erecting, maintaining and repairing transmission lines and poles	Lateral Epicondylitis	27 May 1997	Manchester County	Plaintiff

From September 1980, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Overhead Linesman. He worked in a team of about 3 others. They went around the countryside erecting, maintaining and repairing transmission poles which varied in height from 9 to 12 metres. To erect a pole it was necessary to dig a hole in the ground with a JCB to accommodate the pole. Ropes were then attached to the pole and metal bars were struck into the ground to which the ropes were also attached. A chain was placed around the arm of the JCB and the pole was then pulled and pushed into position. The hole was then back-filled. Before the poles were erected they were dressed as necessary with one or more steel sections or arms. These additional pieces of metal were fixed to the pole by bolts which had to be tightened manually. A typical arm is 2 metres long and weighs 75 pounds.

The Plaintiff's evidence was that it was usual to erect about 5 poles in a day. The distance from one pole to the next was about 90 metres. Since the work often took place in fields it was necessary to carry the equipment across open ground to the place where the work was to happen. Between the poles the Plaintiff and the other members of the team then stretched lengths of electric cable under tension. The cable was on drums and had to be pulled manually from the drum for the purpose of the work. Part of the work was very heavy.

The Plaintiff or one of the others would climb the pole wearing a safety harness and carrying the length of cable that then had to be lain across the arm(s) or section(s) of the pole. The cable was pulled by hand to the position of the next pole. The Plaintiff described this as strenuous work. Eventually the cable was cut and tension was applied by means of a 'Pull Lift'. This was done using a device often at arms length at the top of the pole leaning out sideways to bring tension to bear upon the wire. Joints often had to be made in the cable and this was done by means of a crimping machine that required a force of 40 pounds to operate it.

Old transformers had to be replaced with new ones on existing poles and to do this it was necessary for one of the team to climb the pole, cut away and drop the worn out transformer to the ground. The new one had to be raised up the pole and fixed into position by means of bolts which had to be tightened. A transformer might weigh as much as one ton and heavy items of equipment such as that were raised to the required height using a device called a Tirfor which had to be operated manually.

The Plaintiff is left-handed and used his left arm for the purpose of all the various operations. In June 1993 he began to feel symptoms in his left elbow. That October he went to see his GP. A note in the GP Records dated 6th November 1993 confirmed that the Plaintiff visited his doctor complaining about symptoms which the doctor noted as being due to Left Tennis Elbow. The Plaintiff said that he told his Foreman about the symptoms in his left elbow.

The Plaintiff was off work as a result of those symptoms from about 7th December 1993 until about 18th January 1994 when he returned to light duties. To begin with he was just fetching, carrying and generally helping out. However, in March 1994, he resumed his usual work as an Overhead Linesman. He said that the decision to do so was his own. However, the Plaintiff went off work again on 7th December 1994. On 19th January 1995 the Plaintiff was advised by a Senior Registrar at Wrightington Hospital to continue to remain on a light job as long as possible, at least 3 months. On 28th June 1995, the Defendant sought the advice of an Occupational Health Physician, who on 26th July 1995 suggested that the Plaintiff was fit to do his full duties as an Overhead Linesman, subject to the monitoring of his future attendance and performance. He also suggested that if the Plaintiff did suffer a significant relapse and if his Specialist once again recommended a period of alternative duties it would be prudent to transfer him permanently to alternative duties.

On about 15th November 1995 the Plaintiff sustained an accident at work which was unrelated to his claim. As a consequence of that accident the Plaintiff was off work until about 28th January 1996. When the Plaintiff returned to work he went straight back onto the Overhead Lines. The Plaintiff last worked as an Overhead Linesman in November 1996. From about 10th March 1997 he was transferred permanently to light work.

The Medical Experts agreed that the Plaintiff could not discharge the burden of proving that his Tennis Elbow was caused by his employment.

Towards the end of his Judgement, HH Judge James says:

Having listened to the submissions made by Counsel on behalf of both Parties in this case I have reached the conclusion that the Defendants were in breach of the Regulations and were also negligent. While, of course, I accept that the Plaintiff's Tennis Elbow was not itself caused by any breach on the part of the Defendants I consider that they should have been well aware that the work which Overhead Linesmen were carrying out was heavy work and they were under a duty to have that work assessed. No Assessment of any kind seems to have been undertaken until ... June 1995. That, of course, was some 20 months after the Plaintiff had first complained of symptoms in October 1993. Prior to October 1993 no one warned the Plaintiff that, in carrying out the job of Overhead Linesman, he was running any risk of such symptoms. It was, I find, the duty of the Defendants to have given the Plaintiff such a warning in clear terms.

Once the Plaintiff had developed such symptoms it was the duty of the Defendants to ensure that he knew where to obtain proper medical advice and to plan his eventual return to overhead work, in conjunction with such advice as he obtained, carefully over a period of time and to monitor his progress during that period. Instead, I am satisfied that, until Mr. H began to discuss matters with the Plaintiff on a regular basis he was allowed to take his own decisions. In permitting him to do so I find that the Defendants were negligent.

In any event, I find that the Defendants ought, by December 1994, to have appreciated that the condition of the Plaintiff's left elbow was such that he was no longer physically fit to be a Overhead Linesman. At that stage they should have taken the decision to transfer the Plaintiff to other work not only in his own interest but also in the interest of other Overhead Linesmen whose safety they were likewise under a duty to protect.

I therefore hold the Defendants liable to the Plaintiff for the increase in his symptoms during the period from October 1993 and for their failure to transfer the Plaintiff permanently to other work with effect from the beginning of January 1995.

HH Judge James gave Judgment for the Plaintiff for the sum of £5048.89 plus appropriate interest.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009