Duncan Brockway, defendant personal injury solicitor

Claimant appealed decision not to award her damages following a fall at work when a wooden ramp collapsed.

Claimant was employed by the Council as a carer. As she was pushing a wheelchair down a ramp at somebody's home, the ramp collapsed and the Claimant was hurt. She was not entitled to damages as the ramp was not work equipment for the purpose of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Main points arising:-

• In one sense the ramp was work equipment - it was used by the Claimant in her work
• The Regulations require the equipment to 'be provided for or used by (S) at work [Reg. 3(2)]
• Courts cannot apply literal meaning of 'used by' - see also Couzens v T McGee  - PI E-brief 20 February 2009
• To come within scope of Regulations, equipment must be used in circumstances in which it had been incorporated into, and adopted as part of, the employer's business or undertaking.
• In this case the ramp was not under the employer's control and had not been incorporated into its undertaking
• An inspection by the employer of the ramp merely showed that the employer was careful; it was not exercising control
• Had the employer expressly approved / adopted the ramp the Court's view may have been different.

If you want to discuss this case or its implications please contact Duncan Brockway of Gordons LLP on 01274 202 177 or email duncan.brockway@gordonsllp.com.