Court rejects breached risk assessment appeal

Gravatom Engineering Systems Ltd v Parr

(Court of Appeal - 16 October 2007)

The case involved an appeal by the defendant Gravatom Engineering Systems against a decision that ruled the company had been in breach of duty under reg 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

Mr Parr and some colleagues were involved in moving four large machines, three of which were very heavy - weighing up to 3000kg. The machines were lifted onto skates; two employees pushed from behind, one steered from the front and another acted as lookout. Mr Parr injured his back while pushing the machine.

Expert evidence demonstrated that the force required to start the machines moving and maintain them in motion significantly exceeded the relevant health and safety executive guidance. The trial judge found that the employer had not conducted a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, the regulations had been breached and, therefore, the defendant was liable.

The appellant relied on evidence showing previous instances of the operation being carried without incident and added that an employee had conducted an on-the-spot risk assessment.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that a regulation breach by not conducting a suitable risk assessment did not mean the defendant was automatically liable. If the employer was able to show that it did in fact take appropriate steps to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable then this could be a defence to the claim.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal and held that even though such machines had been pushed on skates previously by three of the four men, it could not in itself demonstrate that the employer had reduced the risk of injury to the minimum reasonably practicable level. The degree of risk varies according to a number of factors - which in this instance had not been satisfactorily assessed.

COMMENT

In such cases, it will often be necessary to conduct relatively technical calculations as to what force is required and consequently the appropriate number of people and type of equipment. This case is a useful reminder to employers of the need to conduct a detailed risk assessment that should consider the factors contained within schedule 1 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. Rachel Robertson, BLM Manchester.