Cooper v Bright Horizons Family Solutions Ltd

An employer must maintain work equipment in an efficient state, efficient working order and good repair. That obligation is absolute. A defective cot therefore constituted a breach where its broken side mechanism forced an employee to lift a baby without being able to adopt a safer posture.

Manual handling duties are assessed contextually. A real and foreseeable possibility of injury is sufficient. Employers must consider the employee’s physical suitability, known health problems, training and the results of their own risk assessments. Causation is established where the work manoeuvre materially caused the injury; a pre-existing condition and a merely speculative possibility of later injury do not defeat the claim.

The claimant, a nursery nurse employed by the defendant, suffered a major L5/S1 disc prolapse and cauda equina syndrome while putting a baby into a cot and subsequently soothing the baby from a chair. The liability trial was ordered to include causation.

The issues were whether the cot was defective, whether the defendant breached duties under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, and whether the work incident caused the claimant’s injury despite her pre-existing back condition.

1. Judgment for the claimant. Damages were to be assessed.
2. The court accepted that the claimant was injured in two stages: first while leaning over the cot to put the baby down, and secondly while sitting beside the cot and twisting to soothe the baby. The major prolapse occurred during the first manoeuvre, with further disc damage during the second.
3. Under regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, the duty to maintain work equipment in an efficient state, efficient working order and good repair was absolute. The broken mechanism meant that the cot was defective. The defendant was also in breach of regulations 8 and 9 because the claimant had not received adequate information, instructions or training on lifting babies.
4. Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 was engaged because putting a baby into the cot without lowering its side involved a real and foreseeable possibility of injury. The assessment was context-based. The defendant had identified a medium or high risk for relevant operations, knew of the claimant’s back condition, and failed to follow its own guidance or provide appropriate training. The risk was reasonably practicable to avoid by lowering the cot side.
5. The court applied the guidance in Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services [2000] PIQR P123: the risk need not approach probability, but must be real and foreseeable, assessed in the context of the particular workplace and employees.
6. On causation, the court accepted the claimant’s spinal expert’s evidence that, but for the manoeuvre of leaning over the cot, the major prolapse and resulting cauda equina syndrome would not have occurred. Her previous back problems created susceptibility but did not establish that the same condition would probably have developed independently. That submission was speculative.
7. The court also applied the evidential guidance in Denton Hall Legal Services v Fifield [2006] EWCA Civ 169: medical records recording a patient’s account are hearsay evidence of a previous statement and cannot simply be treated as proof of the recorded facts. The records did not displace the claimant’s account.

Not stated in the judgment.