Robb v Salamis (M&I) Limited [2006] UKHL 56
Mr Robb was an off-shore worker who had been sleeping on the top
bed of a 2 tier bunk. The bunk had a removable suspended ladder
held in position by bars, providing access to the top bunks. When
he attempted to descend from his bed using the ladder, it dislodged
as it had not been properly engaged within the retaining bars, and
he fell to the floor sustaining injury. He had unsuccessfully
claimed damages under the Provision & Use of Work Equipment
Regulations 1998 in the Sheriff Court and on appeal to the Court of
Session. He appealed to the House of Lords. They considered that
the aim of both regulations 4 and 20 was to ensure that work
equipment was made available to workers and could be used by them
without impairment to their safety or health. The obligation on the
employer was to anticipate situations which might give rise to
accidents by carrying out a risk assessment before work equipment
was used or provided for persons whose health and safety could be
at risk.
Importantly they were of the view that the precise mechanisms of
the accident did not require to be foreseen for the risk of injury
to be foreseeable. They said that the Sheriff had misdirected
himself on the question of foreseeability as it was plain from his
findings that the moveable suspended ladders were not suitable for
the purpose for which they were provided because of the risk that
workers would be injured if they were not replaced properly. It was
therefore necessary for the ladders to be clamped or otherwise
fixed to the sides of the bunk. They upheld the appeal and found Mr
Robb's employers in breach of the Regulations, but agreed with the
Court of Session that Mr Robb was guilty of 50% contributory
negligence given he had known that the ladders were removable and
frequently removed and replaced and had accepted that he ought to
have checked the ladder because of that.
The House of Lords in essence held that the Court of Session
defined the issue of foreseeability too narrowly and that it is the
end result that is the relevant issue. This again illustrates a
purposive interpretation of the Regulations.