Reid v Sundolit Limited - Inner House of the Court of
Session, 27 July 2007
In this decision, which was an appeal from the Sheriff Court at
Arbroath, the Inner House of the Court of Session also had cause to
consider the Provision and Use Regulations. The court provided a
helpful interpretation of Reg 4(3).
Mr Reid was working in a factory that produced, among other
things, packing for foodstuffs. He was working on a machine that
produced a quantity of waste polystyrene. He had to dispose of the
waste in a large cardboard bin (known as an 'octobin' on account of
its hexagonal shape). The bin was full. He chose to climb into the
bin and to try to press down the material already within it. This
was a practice that, the evidence established, was not unknown but
was forbidden by the defenders. While engaged in this enterprise
the bin toppled, as did Mr Reid, who fractured his hip.
Reg 4(3) provides that 'every employer shall ensure that work
equipment is used only for operations for which, and under
conditions for which, it is suitable'. The Inner House hold that
this does not give rise to an absolute obligation; instead
suitability must be judged in the context of intended use. In Reid
itself the accident arose due to the misconduct of the pursuer in
proceeding in a way that was not authorised and did not form any
part of the system for which the equipment was intended. As a
result no breach of Reg 4(3) arose.
This case and that of Spencer-Franks show that the
duties under the Regulations, while undoubtedly strict, do not give
rise to strict liability every time an accident involving equipment
takes place. An injured employee has to establish that the
equipment he was using was properly his 'work equipment' and not
merely the thing he was working on (which may of course be 'work
equipment' itself in other contexts or to other employees). He also
has to show that his 'use' of work equipment is at least to an
extent an authorised or intended use. Put (rather too) simply, an
employee who strikes himself on the head with a hammer does not put
his employer in breach of the 1998 Regulations. (Unfortunately,
this claim has yet to be litigated).