WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales
References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Rietzler & Sanderson -v- Hampshire County Council
| Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 | |
|---|---|
| Rietzler & Sanderson -v- Hampshire County Council | Find Other Cases | |
In this County Court Judgment on the 6th July 2010, at paragraph 33, HH Judge Iain Hughes QC quotes from the opening submission of Counsel for the claimants:
The claimants' case is that once the defendant was on notice of a problem with doors and/or opening mechanisms it was obliged to carry out a risk assessment in compliance with (a) its duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and (b) its common law duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that its staff members had a safe place and system of work as well as safe equipment to work with.
As part of this process of risk assessment, the defendant could and should have tested the doors, security locks and door closing mechanisms to satisfy itself that they had been installed, setup and subsequently maintained in accordance with its design statement and the other standards referred to ... above; as necessary the door knobs should have been replaced (by a lever handle) and/or the door closers should have been adjusted to reduce the closing forces to an acceptable level.
V1.01
| Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 4 | Rietzler & Sanderson -v- Hampshire County Council | Find Other Cases |
In this County Court Judgment on the 6th July 2010, at paragraph 41, HH Judge Iain Hughes QC says:
[Counsel for the claimants] began his written closing submissions in the following terms: "The allegations of breach of Regulations 4 and 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 are no longer pursued. It is accepted that ... the specification and/or setup of the doors, door closers and security locks ... did not give rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to the staff at Marlfield."
V1.01
| Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 5 | Rietzler & Sanderson -v- Hampshire County Council | Find Other Cases |
In this County Court Judgment on the 6th July 2010, at paragraph 41, HH Judge Iain Hughes QC says:
[Counsel for the claimants] began his written closing submissions in the following terms: "The allegations of breach of Regulations 4 and 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 are no longer pursued. It is accepted that ... the specification and/or setup of the doors, door closers and security locks ... did not give rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to the staff at Marlfield."
V1.01
Last updated: 14/05/2013