E-mail this to a friend
Print this
Risk assessment and manual handling
14 November 2007
Gravatom Engineering Systems Limited v Parr, 2007, EWCA Civ 967
Risk assessment and manual handling
Keene, Rix and Waller LJJ
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the defendant had failed to reduce the risk from a manual handling operation to the lowest level reasonably practicable and was, therefore, in breach of its duty under Regulation 4(1)(b)(ii) MHOR 1992.
The claimant handyman/labourer was tasked with moving 4 very large machines from a delivery bay with some of his colleagues as a result of which he injured his back. The task fell within the Manual Handling Operations Regulations of 1992.
The machines had to be moved a distance of between 50 and 70 feet with a 90° bend involved in the manoeuvre. They were put on “skates” which are roller devices. 1 man was at the front of the machine 2 at the back and 1 at the side guiding. On each occasion the claimant was at the rear of the machine pushing. The machinery was very heavy and outside of the usual duties of the claimant.
The Court upheld the trial judge’s view that a detailed risk assessment was necessary but was not done. Had one been done, it would have identified a considerable danger of serious injury to the operatives pushing the machine and that this manual operation could have been avoided by mechanical means such as towing by a fork lift truck or, in fact, the hiring of specialist movers.
In fact, in evidence, the defendants argued that they had done a risk assessment but the Court found that this consisted of little more than “a quick look around” no doubt influenced by the fact that the operation had been done on many occasions previously.
Importantly, the Court found that:
“It is quite clear from the statutory provisions in Schedule 1 of the 1992 Regulations that the degree of risk involved in any operation will vary, depending on a number of factors. Those factors are likely to include the distance involved, the presence or absence of a bend or bends, the length of time for which the physical effort is required, and the age and capability of the persons involved”.
Of fundamental importance is the finding that:
“It is no doubt because of the potential significance of such individual factors that the 1992 Regulations require a detailed assessment of risks to be carried out in many situations."
Conclusion
It is pleasing to see the Court of Appeal making reference to “a detailed assessment of risk”. The Court made reference to the Guidance Note which supports the Regulations and which can be used to “filter” out those cases where this detailed assessment is necessary. For example, lifting a tea cup is recognised as involving “negligible risk”.