Home » The Round-up » Personal Injury: Lee Walsh v CP Hart & Sons Ltd  EWHC 37 (QB)
Joanna Kerr explains how the judgment in the case of Lee Walsh v CP Hart & Sons Ltd  EWHC 37 (QB) serves as a reminder of the requirements for the test of reasonable practicability in accidents at work.
The judgment in Lee Walsh v CP Hart & Sons Ltd  EWHC 37 (QB) offers a reminder of the requirements of the test of reasonable practicability in accidents at work. The Claimant appealed against a decision to dismiss his claim following an accident which took place when he was working as a delivery driver’s ‘mate’. The vehicle which was used for deliveries had a shuttered style rear door with a tail lift which could be opened, then folded out, and raised or lowered to lift items into or out of the van. The Claimant, positioned inside the van, lowered the tail lift containing a pallet for delivery, then awaited the return of the pallet pump truck which would be raised on the tail lift to collect the next pallet from the lorry. Unfortunately, before the pallet pump truck returned and whilst the tail lift was still in the lowered position the Claimant fell out of the van sustaining a serious head injury. The Claimant’s case at trial was that employees should have been trained to always return the tail lift to the raised position when anyone was positioned in the back of the van. The Defendant said such a measure was not reasonably practicable. The judge at first instance found for the Defendant, concluding that although it was for the Defendant to prove reasonable practicability, the test was a simple balancing exercise which he weighed in the Defendant’s favour. The High Court disagreed. They found that the Defendant had failed to appreciate the significant risk of a fall from an exposed load bed and that the test of reasonable practicability was much more than a balancing exercise. The correct approach was to begin with the issue of practicability. If the measure is practicable, the question of reasonableness arises, and for this the Defendant must show that the cost and difficulty of the steps so substantially outweigh the quantum of risk involved as not to be reasonably practicable. It is a “heavy burden” which in this case was not discharged and the appeal was allowed. It did not all go the Claimant’s way however – as he had opened the tail lift himself his claim was subject to a discount of 50% for contributory negligence.
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.