Provision and Use of Work Equipment
The recent judgment of the Law Lords in the case of Smith v Northamptonshire County Council has thrown up some interesting questions in the sphere of Managing Occupational Road Risk, but ultimately in my opinion, does not change the current way we view the legislation.
The basic details of the case are that Mrs Smith was injured after a ramp entering a persons house failed. It was her claim that this was a failure under PUWER and her employer Northamptonshire County Council were liable. The Law Lords found by a majority that this was not the case.
They considered many factors and the main thrust seems to be that the council did not own the ramp, it was not on their premises, they had no control over it and it was not possible for them to maintain it or even insist on its regular maintenance.
In the councils favour they had inspected the ramp, educated their employees on how to assess the ramp and at no time were any defects found.
The Law Lords compared the ramp to either an office chair in a 3rd party office, an escalator, a train or a lift. None of these could be the responsibility of the employer as the responsibility to maintain these would fall to a third party and it would be unreasonable to expect employers to manage those risk.
With regards to vehicles I would suggest that it is the duty of any employer to insist that vehicles are properly maintained at all times and there is some previous case history that suggest that the Law Lords may view any injuries caused by vehicles in a different manner to this ramp. Vehicles are either owned, leased or hired by the employer or are owned, leased or hired by an employee of the business and as such I would advise employers to ensure they have suitable management systems in place.
Nigel Grainger
Senior Consultant