E-mail this to a friend
Print this
Given v James Watt College (2006) CSOH 189
Definition of a "User" Within the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
The claimant suffered injury when she fell heavily to the floor as a result of jumping backwards when she was given a fright by a malfunctioning coffee machine. The machine was used for dispensing drinks at the workplace. She was close to it at the time of its malfunction. The machine emitted a flash in her direction, and there may also have been a loud bang, although the evidence on this was unclear.
Engineers had been called out between 7 and 9 times within the previous 3 months to address the malfunction with the machine but apparently had not succeeded in resolving it. The malfunctioning was electrical in origin and the judge found that there was a clear breach of Regulation 5(1) of the Work Equipment Regulations that work is equipment must be maintained “in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair”.
The issue between the parties was whether the claimant could be classed as a “user” within the terms of the Work Equipment Regulations. The judge stated:
“According to counsel for the defenders, Regulation 5(1) could be prayed in aid only by an employee who was actually using work equipment in the course of his or her work at the time when an accident occurred. Counsel for the pursuer, on the other hand, maintained that the scope of the statutory duty extended far wider than that and conferred protection against any injury sustained by an employee through defects in, or malfunction of, work equipment which had been provided for the use of the workforce”.
The Court did not accept the defenders’ view for the following reasons:
- The Work Equipment Directive contemplated the protection of workers at work.
- For the best part of a century similar statutory provisions of a general nature have protected workers and not just those engaged in a specific task.
- The Regulations have a “broad ambit” pedigree.
- Whilst the protection afforded by some provisions within the 1998 Regulations is specifically limited to persons performing specific tasks (e.g. Regulation 12(1), 17(2) and 26) that is not the case in other provisions (e.g. Regulation 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 11(1), 17(3)(a) and (b), 20, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 32).
However, it is the judge’s analysis that the defenders’ interpretation would lead to the bizarre situation outlined below which was persuasive for he said:
“I am not attracted by a suggested interpretation which would permit recovery to (say) a lathe operator injured by a catastrophic failure of his machine whilst he was actually using it, but none at all to:
a) an apprentice or trainee observing his work;
b) a supervising foreman or manager;
c) a neighbouring lathe operator working on his own machine; or
d) the original operator while in the vicinity of the machine either before or after actual operation."
In respect of the drinks dispensing machine the Court found that it might reasonably have been argued hat the fact that the machine was operationally available throughout the day meant that it was in use continuously.
Conclusion
This judgement supports the approach of the Courts to a wide interpretation of the Work Equipment Regulations not only in relation to work equipment and the suitability of such equipment, but also to the protection of workers injured as a result of faulty equipment at their workplace.