WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales
References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Routledge - v - Woolworths plc
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Contextual Commentary | Routledge - v - Woolworths plc | Find Other Cases | |
In paragraph 10 of the Judgment on the 18th November 2004, HH Judge Sennitt says:
The Claimant has brought her case in negligence and also for breach of statutory duty under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 ("the 1992 Regulations"). The Defendants do not dispute that the latter apply but assert that, however the case is put, there was no foreseeable risk of injury and the case cannot succeed.
Having reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that the Claimant's working position exacerbated her right shoulder and hand symptoms, HH Judge Sennitt says, at paragraphs 21 & 22 of the Judgment:
It is still necessary to determine whether or not there has been a foreseeable risk of injury and breach of any duty in relation to the Claimant's workstation layout. One needs to consider the evidence of [the Ergonomics Experts] in relation to that. They agreed in their joint statement that the Claimant could not be described as carrying out a typical data-entry task. Furthermore the amount of key-board work performed would not be viewed as exposing her to a foreseeable risk. The dimensions of the desk and chair used by the Claimant would indicate they were adequate. Furthermore the layout of the work area and the tasks demanded of her probably resulted in the Claimant leaving her work station at intervals throughout the day. Because so much has been said during the hearing about their area of disagreement it is right to emphasize that they did not differ on everything.
Where they differed substantially was over the positioning of the monitor screen. The view of [the Ergonomics Expert for the Claimant] was that the layout should be to enable the user to adopt an upright forward facing posture and therefore the screen should be located directly in front of the user. In her view the location of the screen on the right hand side of the desk necessitated the repeated rotation of her head each time she referred to the screen display and that should have been viewed as in appropriate. The view of [the Ergonomics Expert for the Defendant] was that the nature of the Claimant's work involving largely interrogatory computer use and reference to documents and files meant that it was appropriate for her screen to be positioned on one side of the desk.
After further consideration of the competing views, HH Judge Sennitt says, at paragraph 25 of the Judgment:
The 1992 Regulations do not state where on the workstation the monitor should be located. At the time however the HSE advice of 1992 was in force. There are two relevant illustrations within that. The first is at page 33 and deals with "seating and posture for typical office tasks". It is a side-on illustration which shows the screen in front of the user as does the corresponding page in the 2003 up-dated Guidance. Page 32 of the advice shows a picture with the monitor and keyboard to the right. That illustration however deals only with "Subjects dealt with in the Schedules". The corresponding page in the 2003 Guidance has been drawn in such a way that the monitor is in front of the user (the old page 32 having been removed entirely). I am in no doubt that the interpretation of those drawings by [the Ergonomics Expert for the Claimant] is the correct one for the reasons she gives. In my view page 32 of the 1992 advice was never intended to give advice on seating and posture for typical office tasks.
At paragraph 29 of the Judgment, HH Judge Sennitt says:
Having heard the ergonomic experts l am satisfied that I should prefer the evidence of [the Ergonomics Expert for the Claimant] rather than [the Ergonomics Expert for the Defendant] upon the important aspects where they differ. Both are experienced and well-qualified but such HSE Guidance, British Standard and up to date literature as there is seems to support the views of [the Ergonomics Expert for the Claimant] rather than [the Ergonomics Expert for the Defendant].
HH Judge Sennitt says, at paragraphs 30 & 31 of the Judgment:
The Defendant's position as to the risk assessments is very unsatisfactory. I have already referred to there being no evidence that one was carried out in April 1998. If there had been one I am sure that anyone considering the layout on the ground would have advised against placing the monitor for the Claimant anywhere other than directly in front of her having regard to the extent of the intended use of the computer.
I am satisfied that there was a foreseeable risk of injury in this case both in negligence and under the 1992 Regulations. I find that there was a breach of the common law duty of care in the wrongful placing of the Claimant's monitor to the right of her desk instead of in front of the Claimant and in thereafter making matters worse by moving the screen yet further to the right. Under the Regulations there was a failure to carry out adequate risk assessments particularly in April 1998 and l am satisfied that such failure was causative of the injuries complained of. So far as causation in the common law claim is concerned I am satisfied on the evidence of [the Single Joint Medical Expert] that that has been established. For completeness I should mention that there is no allegation of contributory negligence.
V1.01
Last updated: 14/05/2013