WRULD DB-Claimant: Mr David Ernest Wilkes

Case	Task	Injury	Date	Court	Judgment for
Wilkes - v - Areva T & D Ltd	Use of a hand held crimping tool	Rupture of tendon	4 Apr 2006	Stoke County	Claimant

As part of his job as a Fitter Wireman, Mr Wilkes was required to attach terminals to wires with a hand-operated crimping tool. Prior to April 2003, the Defendant provided three different tools to deal with the range of sizes of wire: there was one tool for 0.75 mm² and 1.5 mm² diameter wires; another for 2.5 mm² wire; and the third used to fit yellow crimps onto 4 mm² diameter wire. In April 2003, the Defendant introduced a new tool, referred to as a CT6R, which the manufacturer claimed could deal with the range of different sized wires. Mr Wilkes claimed he had suffered an injury to his left thumb on the 23rd May 2003, while he was using the CT6R tool to fix yellow crimps on to 4 mm² diameter wire.

The Judge found on the evidence that: the CT6R crimping tool provided by the Defendant was ergonomically unsound and required greater effort to operate than the tools previously supplied; no risk assessment had been undertaken prior to the introduction of the CT6R tool; the Claimant and others who had used the CT6R crimping tool on 4 mm² diameter wire had complained of the increased effort required to use the tool, but that no action had been taken in response to the complaints; and that Mr Wilkes had suffered an injury to his left thumb, a rupture of the extensor pollicis longus tendon, while he was using the CT6R tool with both hands to fix yellow crimps on to 4 mm² diameter wire.

The Defendant was found to be in breach of their statutory duty and also in breach of their common law duty of care to the Claimant. The Judge found that it was not good enough for the Defendant to rely upon the manufacturer's advertising or information leaflets and concluded that if the defendant had carried out a risk-assessment they would have discovered that excessive effort was required to operate the tool and that it was more probable than not the Defendant would have done something about it. Either they would have allowed their workforce to have their old tools back, or they would have replaced the CT6R with an alternative tool that was available at the time.

From a lay perspective, this case demonstrates the importance of considering ergonomic factors when introducing new equipment and of responding appropriately to complaints. While not explicitly mentioned in the Judgment, paragraph 100 of the HSE's Approved Code of Practice and Guidance on the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, as part of the Approved Code of Practice on regulation 4(1) & (2), states: "When selecting work equipment, employers should take account of ergonomic risks".

It is clear from the Judgment that there was very little difference in the opinions of the medical experts, who are quoted as agreeing that:

We assume that the tendon ruptured would have been by a mechanism of attrition, friction, abrasion. Whilst there is no overt osteoarthritis evident on the x-ray of the wrist, Mr Wilkes does display early evidence of nodes in his fingers, which are a sign of osteoarthritis in the small joints of the hands and wrists. With this in mind, we propose that the extensor pollicis longus tendon may have, in the fullness of time, ruptured, and would further consider that the work activity that he was engaged in at the time of the injury would have accelerated this rupture of the tendon by approximately three years.

Of note from a lay perspective, is the reference in the Judgment to the Claimant's age. At paragraph 42 of the Judgment, Mr Recorder Cliff states:

The evidence in this case was that the claimant, although he was crimping only three or four of these yellow crimps before the accident, they would take him a considerable effort to do so. He was 59. He is likely to be less powerful than a younger member of the workforce, although people plainly younger than him were finding this job difficult. The effort required was excessive, and I find that greater effort leads to greater risk of injury.

The damages awarded are not stated in the Judgment.

V2.02

Last updated: 16/10/2009