WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Shaughnessey -v- Bolton Council

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
	Contextual Commentary | Shaughnessey -v- Bolton Council | Find Other Cases

In paragraph 24 of the Judgment on the 8th July 2010, HH Judge Platts states:

It is accepted that the work was work to which the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 applied.

V1.01

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
Regulation 4	Contextual Commentary | Shaughnessey -v- Bolton Council | Find Other Cases

In paragraphs 24 to 30 of the Judgment on the 8th July 2010, HH Judge Platts states:

Under Regulation 4 there is a duty to avoid manual handling which involves the risk of the Claimant being injured. Clearly in this type of job there is a risk of injury through lifting weights which are either too heavy or with poor posture, such risks are associated with any lifting activity, and I am quite sure that it was that what Mrs Jackson was referring to when she accepted, in cross-examination, that the job carried a risk of injury, but as she said, and I find, the risk was no more really than that involved in general activity. I am not persuaded that it was reasonably practicable for the Defendant to avoid the need for manual handling in this job, whether certain manual handling aspects of it could or should have been avoided may be different, and I will deal with that in due course. The next duty under the Regulations is that if there is a risk there is a duty on the Defendant to make an assessment of that risk. In my judgment the Defendant has not adduced any good evidence that there was a suitable or sufficient risk assessment of this job. The evidence of Mrs Jackson, and this is no blame on her, but it did not come close to describing an assessment of the job where risks were identified and steps to be taken to reduce or minimise the risk were put in place. In the circumstances I am persuaded that there is, on the evidence, a breach by the Defendant of their duties to make a risk assessment under Regulation 4.1(b)(I). The next duty on the Defendant is to take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable. Clearly whether there is a breach of this depends upon what the risk was and then how, if at all, it could have been reduced. Clearly there is a risk of injuries through lifting and carrying as I have said, and had Mrs Shaughnessey suffered an injury to her back which could have been shown to have been the result of her having to lift heavy equipment which she should not have been lifting, then a breach might have been made out. However, on the evidence in this case, I am not persuaded that there was a risk of injury through repetitive work. That is the allegation in this case. I take into account the following factors. First the Claimant's work was only for short periods, one hour in the morning and two hours each evening. Mr Davidos agreed that a risk is reduced if there are regular breaks from any potentially harmful repetitive work, he said every hour, but at most on each day the Claimant was only working a maximum of two hours shifts. Secondly the Claimant was not doing the same task throughout the shift. Insofar as there may have been loads on her elbow, it was not constant or not of the same type. There were changes in the activities and although there was no formal rotation of jobs between employees, there was a rotation of tasks within the job of a cleaner. It is not a case where the Claimant was doing the same activity for long shifts without a break as is typical in claims where injury is foreseeable through repetitive actions. I am not persuaded that the job as a cleaner in this school was any different from that of any other cleaner employed either by the Defendant or elsewhere. Mrs Jackson's evidence was that there are over five hundred cleaners employed by the Defendant and so far as she is aware there has not been a complaint of repetitive type injuries as a result of the task, and there is no evidence before me that the job of a cleaner or a domestic is of itself a task that gives rise to a risk of a repetitive straining type of injury. In the circumstances it seems to me that unless the Claimant could show that there were particular features of this job which had it assessed the Defendant could or should have said that that should not have been done in that particular way, then it is difficult to see what the identified risk should have been. Indeed the Claimant has not adduced any evidence to show how this job could or should have been done differently, save for suggestions put in cross examination that a hose should have been used to fill the buckets rather than having to lift them to the sink, or that a self squeezing mop should have been used, or indeed that the dumb waiter in the cleaners' room could and should have been used. In the circumstances I am not persuaded that the jobs performed by the Claimant gave rise to a foreseeable risk of the type of injury complained by her. I am not persuaded that any risk assessment would have identified that risk or, therefore, that there was any duty on the Defendant to reduce or minimise that risk.

At paragraph 32 of the Judgment, HH Judge Platts says:

So the only breach of duty that I find proved is the failure to assess the job, but having regard to the evidence I am not satisfied that even if this job had been assessed, that the risk of the type of injury complained of by the Claimant would have been revealed or that anything would, could or should have been done to alter the work so as to reduce or avoid that risk.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013