Craner v Dorset County Council

Liability under workplace safety regulations may arise where a raised paving slab creates a risk of tripping or bringing a wheeled conveyance to an abrupt stop. The issue is fact-sensitive. The absence of prior accidents, precise measurements or a controlled experiment does not prevent a finding of risk. Suitability of work equipment is a separate question: an accident does not itself make a trolley unsuitable. For future cases, differences in height between adjoining slabs should ordinarily be analysed as unevenness under regulations 12(1) and 12(2)(a), rather than as an obstruction under regulation 12(3).

Mr David Craner, a handyman and caretaker at a primary school, injured his knee when a trolley struck a raised paving slab between two classrooms. The injury caused him to stop undertaking manual work earlier than would otherwise have been necessary.

His Honour Judge Bond at Bournemouth County Court found that Dorset County Council was liable under regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and/or regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998. The Council appealed, contending that the slab presented no relevant risk and that the trolley was suitable. The central issues were whether the slab constituted an actionable workplace hazard and whether the accident established that the trolley was unsuitable.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Longmore LJ held that the evidence, although scanty, did not require the County Court’s conclusion to be set aside. Arden LJ agreed. Sedley LJ also dismissed the appeal, while expressing less confidence in the basis on which the trial judge had reached his conclusion.

1. Regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 requires, so far as reasonably practicable, a workplace floor or traffic route to be kept free from obstructions and from things capable of causing slipping, tripping or falling. The judge was entitled to find that the raised slab created a sufficient risk to users. The absence of an exact measurement, a controlled experiment or any previously recorded accident did not prevent that finding.
2. The court distinguished Marks and Spencer Plc v Palmer [2001] EWCA Civ 1528. The 9 mm weather strip in Palmer had been held not to expose users to a relevant risk and was suitable. That conclusion was fact-sensitive. A fitted weather strip differed in shape and size from the raised paving slab in the present case.
3. The trolley was not unsuitable work equipment under regulation 4 of the Equipment Regulations. Its apparent suitability for its intended purpose was not displaced merely because an accident had occurred. That conclusion did not determine the appeal in the Council’s favour because liability under the Workplace Regulations remained.
4. For future cases, the difference in height between adjoining paving slabs should be considered under regulations 12(1) and 12(2), particularly the concept of unevenness in regulation 12(2)(a), rather than primarily under the concept of obstruction in regulation 12(3). The distinction is between the condition of the workplace and obstructions placed upon it. This was prospective guidance.
5. Longmore LJ observed that the Regulations largely replace the former common law negligence regime and impose a higher standard of liability. Giving other maintenance matters a higher priority did not, of itself, provide a defence. No separate argument was advanced on the words so far as reasonably practicable.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed on 5 December 2008 under [2008] EWCA Civ 1323.
2. Bournemouth County Court: His Honour Judge Bond appears to have found Dorset County Council liable under regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and/or regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998.