Home | News & events | Press releases | Law Lords' ramp ruling ends threat of legal action

Law Lords' ramp ruling ends threat of legal action

20 May 2009

Companies and organisations cannot be sued by staff injured when using equipment not provided or maintained by their employer.

The House of Lords ruled against a care worker who tried to sue her employer after she was injured when a ramp caused her to fall – even though the ramp had not been installed by the council she worked for.

The Law Lords said employers need to have control over the equipment that has caused the injury.

It means organisations cannot be successfully sued in such circumstances under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).

Handing down judgment, they held that employers should not be liable for equipment not supplied by them, particularly when it is not on their own premises.

Shoosmiths associate and insurance litigation and regulatory specialist Rubina Zaidi said: “This comes as a massive relief to just about every business and organisation you care to mention.

“It would have had wide ranging implications, and meant employers making extra provision for unforeseen risk.”

She said the Law Lords had recognised that some limit had to be placed on the scope of the regulations covering work equipment to avoid placing a heavy burden of liability on employers.

A majority of the Law Lords found it useful to consider the principle of the European directive that gave rise to the regulations, the purpose of which was focused on protecting health and safety, rather than giving people the right to seek damages through legal action.

Zaidi said: “The Law Lords made another, crucial, point, saying employers who have no control over equipment that causes an injury should not be liable, even if they have inspected the equipment as part of a risk assessment.”

Shoosmiths acted for Northamptonshire County Council after one of its employees was injured as she pushed a wheelchair-bound patient down a wooden ramp at the patient’s home.

The edge of the ramp – which had not been installed by the county council – crumbled, causing the employee to slip.

She sued the council, claiming inadequate work equipment under PUWER, and won, the judge ruling that the ramp was ‘work equipment’, and that it was inadequately maintained.

Northamptonshire County Council went to the Court of Appeal, which held that the ramp was not work equipment for the purposes of PUWER, and took into account a number of factors:

The employee appealed, taking her case to the House of Lords, resulting in today’s judgment.

For further information please contact:
Name: Alastair Gray
Phone: 08700 864096
Email: alastair.Gray@shoosmiths.co.uk

Email this page