Warner v Huntingdonshire District Council

In a workplace injury claim, proof of breach of the common-law duty of care or a statutory manual-handling duty does not itself establish entitlement to damages. The claimant must show that the breach caused or materially contributed to the injury. Where the alleged breach is failure to provide training, evidence is required that training could have affected the claimant’s method of working and thereby his condition. An appeal may be dismissed on that independent causation ground without resolving whether the trial judge was right about foreseeability or regulatory risk.

The appellant, a refuse collector and driver, claimed damages for a degenerative back condition which he said had been accelerated by repetitive lifting of refuse bags. He alleged breach of the common-law duty of care and the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC dismissed the claim, finding no breach and no real risk under the regulations. The appeal challenged those conclusions, principally whether the evidence established foreseeable or regulatory risk and whether any breach caused the injury.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Latham delivered the judgment; Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Chadwick agreed. The order was appeal dismissed with costs, subject to public funding costs assessment.

1. Causation was decisive. The appellant had a vulnerable back, treated in the agreed medical evidence as a pre-existing condition. His case on breach rested on failure to provide appropriate training. There was no evidence that his actual method of working was capable of being changed by training, or what benefit training would have achieved. He therefore could not show that any breach caused or contributed to his condition so as to justify damages.
2. The court did not need to resolve breach. It did not determine whether the judge was right that there was no foreseeable risk for common-law purposes or no real risk for purposes of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. The safety committee minutes, later reference to training for manual workers, and the 1995 risk assessment could support an argument that back strain was recognised and training contemplated. They did not supply the missing causal evidence.
3. Appellate consequence. Even assuming a breach of the common-law duty or the regulations, the claim failed. The appeal was therefore doomed to fail whatever conclusion was reached on negligence or statutory breach.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC dismissed the appellant’s personal injury claim on 26 July 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the appeal was dismissed with costs in [2002] EWCA Civ 791.