Jaguar Cars Ltd v Coates

Foreseeability that a person may trip on steps does not, without more, establish that reasonable care requires an employer to install a handrail. The court must assess whether the steps present a real risk to a user exercising ordinary care, having regard to their construction and use.

Regulation 5(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 concerns the maintenance of workplace facilities already provided. It does not impose a duty to provide a handrail. The requirements for provision of handrails are found elsewhere in the Regulations.

The claimant, a factory employee, tripped while ascending four external steps after a break and sustained a serious arm injury. The steps were sound, had been used for years without accident or complaint, and had no handrail at the time. A handrail was installed after the accident.

In Birmingham County Court, the judge held the employer negligent for failing to provide a handrail, found the claimant 25 per cent contributorily negligent, and awarded agreed damages. The judge rejected a statutory-duty claim under regulation 12(5) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

The employer appealed the negligence finding. The claimant cross-appealed on contributory negligence and, if needed, relied on regulation 5(1). The central issue was whether reasonable care, or regulation 5(1), required a handrail for these steps.

1. Appeal allowed. The finding of negligence could not stand. The steps were solidly constructed, had only four shallow risers and generous treads, and did not present a real risk to a person using the ordinary care expected when going up or down steps.

2. The trial judge treated the foreseeable possibility that a worker might trip as establishing a duty to provide a handrail. That was an error. Foreseeability is relevant, but it does not itself require a particular precaution. On the evidence, the absence of a handrail was not a failure to take reasonable care. The later installation of a handrail did not itself prove prior negligence.

3. Regulation 5(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 imposed an absolute duty to maintain the workplace and relevant equipment in an efficient state, working order and repair. However, its heading and terms showed that it concerned maintenance, not what equipment or safety features had to be provided. The provision of handrails was addressed by regulation 12(5), which was accepted not to require a handrail for these steps.

4. The cross-appeal on contributory negligence did not arise. The County Court order was set aside and the claimant’s claim was dismissed. The employer received costs in the Court of Appeal and below.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2004] EWCA Civ 337, allowed the employer’s appeal, set aside the County Court order, and dismissed the claim.
• Birmingham County Court (His Honour Judge Durman): Found the employer negligent for failing to provide a handrail, assessed contributory negligence at 25 per cent, and awarded agreed damages of £60,000.