Alsop v Sheffield City Council

Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 applies only where manual handling involves a real, foreseeable risk of injury. The risk need not approach a probability, but it must be assessed realistically. Employers may take account of the experience of the employees concerned and need not assume that employees will always behave with perfect regard for their own safety.

Where an assessment is required, the employer must take appropriate steps to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable. In a routine task involving variable loads and conditions, this may require no more than instructing experienced employees to exercise common sense, having regard to the load, location, weather and their own fitness.

Thomas Alsop, a refuse collector employed by Sheffield City Council, injured his elbow while pulling a wheelie bin up a steep concrete ramp. He sued in negligence and for breach of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. The Sheffield County Court dismissed claims arising from two incidents.

With permission, he appealed only in relation to the ramp incident. He argued that the Council should have provided fuller instructions, including directions to use steps or move bins to level ground, or should have provided sacks or liners instead of wheelie bins. The central issue was whether the operation involved a risk requiring assessment and risk-reduction measures under Regulation 4.

1. Appeal dismissed. The recorder was entitled to find, on the evidence, that pulling or pushing wheelie bins up and down the slopes did not involve a real, foreseeable risk of injury. The operation had been used regularly by experienced refuse collectors, and the accident evidence did not show frequent injuries of that kind.
2. Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 applies only to manual handling operations involving a risk of employees being injured. Following Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services [2000] PIQR 123, the risk must be real and foreseeable, although it need not approach a probability.
3. The employer may consider the experience of the employee said to be at risk. The assessment must also be realistic and need not assume that employees will always act with full concern for their own safety.
4. Even if the Council had been required to assess the operation under Regulation 4(1)(b)(i), Regulation 4(1)(b)(ii) would have required no more than appropriate instructions to use common sense. The operative could judge whether to use the ramp, the steps or level ground by reference to the bin’s weight, the local geography, weather conditions and personal fitness.
5. The order dismissing the claim was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

• Sheffield County Court: Miss Recorder Godfrey QC dismissed the claims arising from both accidents on 15 March 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal concerning the second accident was dismissed with costs.