Walsh v TNT (UK) Ltd Opinion of Lord Hodge 2006
James Walsh, 36, worked for TNT (UK) as a collection and
delivery driver. He joined the company in 1996 and in March 2004
transported some items in his van from TNT's depot in Glasgow to an
address in East Kilbride. There were two packages and three boxes
and the total weight of the consignment was 59kg. The pursuer
claimed that whilst making the delivery in East Kilbride he hurt
his back. He suggested that the injury was caused by a combination
of the fact that one of the boxes was very heavy, approximately
40kg and the roof height of the van meant that he couldn't stand up
straight when initially trying to pick the boxes up. The pursuer
suffered a back injury and brought a claim against TNT for breach
of the Manual Handling Regulations.
The value of the claim was agreed at £6,650. The question for
the Judge was whether or not TNT were liable.
After hearing evidence Lord Hodge found that the box in question
in fact weighed only 22kg and could, in accordance with the
guidelines produced by the Health & Safety Executive, have been
safely lifted by hand. He was also unconvinced by the pursuer's
suggestion that he needed to bend over or crouch when lifting boxes
out of the van. Subject to these two points the Judge accepted the
pursuer's explanation of how the accident happened.
Lord Hodge was clearly impressed by witnesses from TNT who gave
evidence about the importance the company attached to training
employees involved in manual handling operations and the fact that
the company's training expertise had been recognised by the Health
& Safety Executive with a 5 star accreditation. He accepted
that the company were committed to training and refresher training
in relation to manual handling and also that all of the company
vehicles contained handbooks which described, amongst other things,
safe lifting practice.
On the other hand Lord Hodge pointed out that while the pursuer
had received manual handling training from TNT on two occasions in
1997, his training records showed that he ought to have had a
refresher course in 2003 and that he had not attended.
Lord Hodge found that TNT were in breach of their duties under
the Manual Handling Regulations on the basis that they had failed
to provide the pursuer with refresher training. He recognised that
the pursuer had received training on manual handling in 1997 and
seemed to have understood the principles. The Judge however found
that the reinforcement of safe practices in refresher courses would
have encouraged the pursuer to adopt the appropriate posture and
lifting technique and that as a result the injury would have been
avoided.
This case should be seen as a wake up call to all employers. The
fact that appropriate training has been provided at some time in
the past will not necessarily satisfy a court. There is a
recognition of the fact that obligations under the Manual Handling
Regulations are current and continuing and also the fact that in
reality people forget things they have been told and require to be
reminded regularly in order to continue performing at the top
level.
It seems the motto here ought to be train, train and train
again.