The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He claimed for the injury, saying that under the regulations, since the boots were protective equipment, and as a result of a fault he was injured, the company was liable.
Held: The injury suffered was not of the kind from which the boots were designed to give protection. The regulations gave effect to the Directive which was intended to protect against perceived risks. By a majority the House held that any special duty to the claimant under the Regulations extended to the risks against which the protection was provided.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The purpose of PPE is, therefore, as a last resort after collective protection or methods of work organisation, to avoid or limit risks’
References: [2004] UKHL 31, Times 02-Jul-2004, [2004] ICR 975, [2004] IRLR 817, [2004] 4 All ER 221
Links: Bailii, House of Lords
Judges: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond
Statutes: Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2966) 7(1), Personal Protective Equipment Directive (89/656/EEC)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc CA 12-May-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 874, [2003] ICR 1582)
A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite.
Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of . . - Cited – Groves v Lord Wimborne CA 1898 ((1898) 79 LT 284, (1898) 67 LJQB 862, [1898] 2 QB 402)
The court heard a case dealing with a claim for breach of a duty to fence dangerous machinery under the Act.
Held: Legislation protecting safety in the workplace gives rise to an action by a person for whom the protection was intended for . . - Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . . - Cited – John Summers and Sons Ltd v Frost HL 1955 ([1955] AC 740, [1955] 1 All ER 870)
The normal rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed has not been allowed to stand in the way of the protection given to the workman by the statutory language. The House considered the requirement under section 14(1) of the 1937 Act that . .
This case is cited by:
- Appealed to – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc CA 12-May-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 874, [2003] ICR 1582)
A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite.
Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of . . - Cited – Hampshire Police v Taylor CA 9-May-2013 (, [2013] EWCA Civ 496, [2013] WLR(D) 171, [2013] PIQR P20, [2013] ICR 1150, )
The officer had been cut by glass when clearing out a cannabis factory. The risk assessment had identified only a need for latex gloves. She said that given the environment heavier garden gloves should have been provided. The Chief Constable . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.198540
