WRULD Claims heard in Courts in England, Scotland and Wales

Hearing(s) - Simpson - v - Dunham Bush Ltd

Date	Court	Claimant(s)	Task	Injury	Judgment for
18 Jun 1999	Southampton County	Simpson	DSE use: alphanumeric data entry	Carpal Tunnel Syndrome	Plaintiff

In this case it was common ground that the Claimant had suffered bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which required decompression. The central issue was whether or not this was caused by the Claimant's use of display screen equipment in 1995. HH Judge Lauriston preferred the evidence of the Claimant's Medical Expert and found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Claimant's condition was work related. With respect to liability, the opinions of the Claimant's Ergonomics Expert were not seriously challenged. Quoting from the report of the Claimant's Ergonomics Expert, HH Judge Lauriston says:

Dealing with paragraph 4.2.1 of [his] report, it reads thus: "If the defendant provided Mrs Simpson with a keyboard that met the relevant standards there cannot be a foreseeability of her condition developing as a result of that change alone. However, I would argue the defendants were under a duty to assess Mrs Simpson's work station and system of work. Had they done so, I have no doubt that they would have classified Mrs Simpson as a user within the definition of the regulations. They should have decided that several risk factors were present and seen to it she was instructed suitably with guidance on arranging her equipment, keying posture, work schedules and the need to report difficulties."

Then he sets out how, on his inspection of the premises and work place, he considered the defendants had failed in their statutory duty. It was that, "Mrs Simpson should have been classed as a user and her system of work should have been assessed under Regulation 2.1. The risks identified during such an assessment should have been reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable, Regulation 2.3. Her work station should have been reviewed in line with Regulation 2.2 when her work load changed significantly and whenever there was a significant change in the hardware. The employers failed to meet the minimum equipment requirement imposed by Regulation 3." Paragraph 5 at the bottom of that page reads: "The defendants failed in their duty to plan Mrs Simpson's daily work routine regarding breaks in accordance with Regulation 4." He again refers to the Health and Safety's guidance in the regulations regarding that.

When dealing with the issue of liability, HH Judge Lauriston states:

I do not propose to spend very much time on this because the answer is so obvious that they clearly were in breach of statutory duties, and also negligence. Neither of those in fact were, as I have already indicated, very seriously challenged or disputed. I am satisfied that most of the breaches which have been alleged have been proved.

It also seems to me quite incredible that the person responsible for implementing these regulations, Mr C, was in total ignorance of the Health and Safety Display Screen Regulations of 1992. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that he failed to put them into practice.

The Claimant was awarded damages totalling £9,000 including interest, of which £7,001 was general damages.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009