| Home
| WLR Daily | Publications
| Mooting | Search
| Prices | About
ICLR |
| ICRE Menu: |
| HEALTH AND SAFETY Burgess v Plymouth City Council: [2005] EWCA Civ 1659 CA: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Smith and Maurice Kay LJJ: 30 November 2005 The claimant was employed by the defendant council as a cleaner in a school. While wiping tables in a classroom she fell over a brightly coloured plastic container 43cms long, 34cms wide and 25 5cms high, which was in plain sight on the floor between the tables and the door by which she had entered the room. She claimed damages for injuries sustained in the fall, alleging that the council were in breach of regulation 12 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. On the trial of liability the judge found that the container should have been tidied away before the claimant entered the room; that it had been reasonably practicable for the container to have been safely stowed away at the side of the room in accordance with the usual system; that the container was an article over which someone was liable to fall, within the meaning of regulation 12(3); and that the council was in breach of its duty under regulation 12(3) to keep the workplace floor free of such articles. The judge further found that the container was plain and obvious to see to anyone who had been keeping a proper lookout for their own safety and that although the council was liable for breach of duty the claimant was also 50% to blame for the accident. The defendant council appealed. The Court of Appeal held: Contrary to the defendant's contentions on appeal, the judge had made no finding that the claimant was employed to tidy such items as the container over which she had fallen and, in any event, the question whether she had been so employed was not determinative of the finding of a breach of duty. The school knew full well that the container might cause an accident if not stowed away, it had a system to avoid that risk, and if the system had been operated correctly the accident would not have happened. On the judge's findings, the container was an obstruction or an article which "may cause a person to ... fall" within the meaning of regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been safely stowed elsewhere in accordance with the usual system. In the circumstances the breach of duty was made out. The appeal was dismissed. Appearances: Andrew Hogarth QC (Veitch Penny, Exeter) for the defendant council; Timothy Grice (Harris Fowler, Taunton) for the claimant. |
Subscribe to The Industrial Cases reports now for full text reports. |