In the case of Grace v BMW we successfully defended a claim at trial in the Oxford County Court that was brought under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (“the Regulations”).

Background

The claimant allegedly injured his lower back when lifting the front door of a vehicle which weighed in the region of 35 kgs.

Allegations

It was alleged that the defendants were in breach of Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Regulations 1992 in failing to avoid the need for the claimant to perform a manual handling operation. It was also alleged that the defendants failed to make any or any suitable assessment, failed to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable and failed to devise a safe system of work.

Arguments

The claimant was working in a new build area which was not part of the main production line. On this basis, the defendants argued that it was not reasonably practicable to mechanise the area where the claimant was working. It was argued that suitable and sufficient risk assessments were being carried out on a regular basis as the area developed. The defendant did not want a negotiated settlement for fear of further copycat cases.

Trial

At trial a former employee was called as a witness for the defence. He had previously suffered a similar injury following which a review of the system of work was undertaken. His evidence was accepted by the judge, i.e. that risk assessments had been carried out and that the claimant was or should have been aware of the need for the door to have been lifted by two people. The judge decided that the defendants had taken all steps to reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable and judgment was for the defendant. Permission to appeal was refused.

The success was especially hard fought given the absence of any documentary evidence to support the fact that risk assessments had been carried out. Supplemental witness evidence was required to deal with the issues of disclosure. The judge was clearly impressed by the defendants’ witnesses and in particular the former employee who was previously injured. It was noted that this witness was a former colleague working at the same level as the claimant and was not part of the management set-up.

The case demonstrates that even in the absence of supporting documentation claims under the Regulations can be defended successfully. Gathering witness evidence inevitably plays a crucial role.

For further information please contact Paul Chadder