1069 - 1706

Watch Your Step

Regulation 12 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Two recent cases are of interest, at issue in the first, a Dingwall Sheriff court action, are the reasonably practicable steps an employer must take to avoid liability under Regulation 12(3). The second, an English Appeal Court decision, deals with the application of and relationship between Regulations 12(1) and (3).

MacKenzie v Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd - Dingwall Sheriff Court 17 April 2007

Mrs MacKenzie was employed by the Co-op as the supervisor of their shop in Fortrose, Ross-shire. Her duties as supervisor included opening up the shop first thing in the morning. She was also required to assess the external conditions of the ground surface in the area of the front door and to apply grit as appropriate using grit kept in a bright yellow bin situated close to the store's trolley bay. Mrs MacKenzie was aware that the Co-op had a system in place for dealing with ice and had applied grit herself prior to the accident. Nevertheless liability was still found to attach to her employers in terms of Regulation 12 (3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The Co-ops downfall was failing to give Mrs MacKenzie instruction or training as to how she should protect herself from slipping while applying the grit to the already icy surface. It was one thing to expect her to be responsible for checking ground conditions and spreading grit where necessary and quite another to give her no advice or instruction as to how she should protect herself from slipping on ice before the traffic route had been treated with grit. The Sheriff said "The first person arriving at a workplace was equally entitled to the protection of Regulation 12(3) as any other employee arriving later in the day."

Employers will have to take heed of the Sheriff's words in this case and perhaps re-think the training given to staff.

Ellis v Bristol City Council 2007 - EWCA Civ 685

Mrs Ellis fell in the corridor of the care home for the elderly where she worked. She slipped on a pool of urine left by an incontinent resident. The question for the Appeal Court was whether the circumstances gave rise to an absolute obligation that the construction of the floor of every workplace be suitable for the purpose for which it is used in terms of Regulation 12(1) or an obligation limited by reasonable practicability to keep the floor free from substances which may cause a person to slip, trip or fall in terms of Regulation 12(3).

The employers argued that the strict liability arising under Regulation 12(1) concerned the construction of the floor. They said transient conditions or hazards were to be dealt with under Regulation 12(3) where the employer's duty was limited to doing that which is reasonably practicable to keep the floor free of substances likely to cause persons to slip.

On the other hand Mrs Ellis argued that if a smooth floor is frequently and regularly slippery because of a substance that lies upon it, albeit temporarily, the surface of the floor may properly be said to be unsuitable, if the slipperiness is such as to give a risk to the health and safety of those employees using it.

While recognizing that there was force in the employer's argument that transient problems are governed by Regulation 12(3) and not Regulation 12(1) Lord Justice Lloyd stated "I consider that if the transient problems recur sufficiently often and regularly, they may cease only to be the province of Regulation 12(3), and instead become the subject-matter of the absolute obligation in Regulation 12(1). That would be the case with the area surrounding a swimming pool. In my judgment it is also the case with a corridor in a care home where the incontinence of residents causes regular and frequent incidents of urine on the floor of the corridor."

The upshot is that each case will have to be considered on its own facts to allow a judgment to be made as to whether the hazardous condition arises with sufficient frequency and regularity as to make the floor 'unsuitable for its use'.

Contributed by Katharine Crawford

Subscribe to our news feeds

Keep up-to-date with all of our publications, legal updates, firm news and events.

Firm NewsLegal UpdatesSMIBEvents