WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales
References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Westray - v - Midland Bank plc
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 4 | Contextual Commentary | Westray - v - Midland Bank plc | Find Other Cases |
In the Judgment on the 17th June 1997, starting at H on page 87, HH Judge Eaglestone states:
The plaintiff, however, also argued that the defendants were negligent or in breach of Regulation 4 of the Display Screen Equipment Regulations, 1992, which came into force in January 1993, in that they failed as set out in paragraph 5(j) of the amended particulars of claim, at page 6 of the trial bundle:
"Failed negligently and they were in breach of Regulation 4 of the Regulations so to plan the plaintiff's activities as to ensure that her daily work was periodically interrupted by such breaks as adequately would have reduced her workload on the said equipment to a safe level and/or to provide adequate changes of activity."
The plaintiff's counsel did concede this was not a major part of the plaintiff's case as he put it. The defendants' Code of Practice at page 415, paragraph A 1.8 states:
"Although there is no specific time limitation for working at VDUs, it is essential that the task and the job does not mean many hours spent continuously at the VDU with keyboard input work. Rest breaks do not need to be taken at pre-designated times but there should be a change of task on a regular basis.
However, where continuous inputting and viewing is the main job feature and a change of task cannot be arranged, an equivalent of a 15 minute break every two hours away from the display and keyboard to carry out some other function, would be acceptable but it is preferable the breaks are short and frequent. Whichever, a regular break must be taken by dedicated inputters."
[The Plaintiff's Engineer] gave frank evidence that the practice in industry at the material time was to give a 10 minute break every two hours which was the practice, in fact, followed by the defendants despite the Code of Practice from October, 1991. [The Plaintiff's Engineer] knew of only one company that gave a 15 minute break every two hours.
In these circumstances, the relevant standard in practice in industry was 10 minute breaks every two hours at the material time. Consequently, I find it was not foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer injury owing to the length or frequency of breaks provided by the defendants between May1991 to January 1993.
However, from January,1993 the Display Screen Equipment Regulations came into force. Regulation 4 of the Regulations reads:
"Every employer shall so plan the activities of users at work in his undertaking that their daily work on display screen equipment is periodically interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as reduced their workload at that equipment."
The guidance also appears on the same page at 45(c):
"Short frequent breaks are more satisfactory than occasional longer breaks, eg, a 5 to 10 minute break after 50 to 60 minutes continuous screen, hand or keyboard work is likely to be better than a 15 minute break every 2 hours."
The defendants argue that the guidance is simply a guidance and imposes no duty on employers to give breaks of any particular frequency or interval. I agree with their interpretation of the Regulations.
[The Plaintiff's Engineer] said he would have preferred the defendants to have given a smaller break every hour but he did not at any stage of his evidence say the defendants were in breach of their duty of care to the plaintiff which is not surprising given the standard applied in industry at the material time. Moreover, the fact that [the Plaintiff's Medical Expert] thought more frequent short breaks would have been beneficial for the plaintiff and may have avoided or delayed the onset of symptoms is, I find, irrelevant on this point given the practice in industry at the material time.
On the same point [The Plaintiff's Engineer] said that there is no scientific evidence to support the argument that a lack of breaks causes injury. I accept that evidence from [The Plaintiff's Engineer].
The defendants, I find, were not in breach of Regulation 4 of the Display Screen Equipment Regulations.
V1.01
Last updated: 14/05/2013