West Sussex County Council v Fuller

A breach of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 does not itself establish liability. The claimant must prove a causal connection between the breach and the injury. Where an injury materialises from the particular risk generated by a manual handling operation, that may establish a prima facie causal connection and place an evidential burden on the employer. That does not apply where the accident is manifestly unconnected with the operation’s risks. Carrying an item at the time of an ordinary misstep does not make the operation a cause of the injury.

The respondent, an administrative assistant employed by the appellant council, was injured after falling on a staircase while delivering post within an office building. She alleged that she was carrying a heavy and bulky load, which prevented her seeing her footing or using a handrail.

His Honour Judge Coltart rejected that account. He found that she was carrying only light, non-bulky items, had a hand free, and simply misjudged her footing. Nevertheless, he gave judgment for her because the council had not carried out a risk assessment for the post-delivery task under the relevant health and safety regulations.

The council appealed. The central issue was whether breach of the risk-assessment and manual-handling duties could establish liability without proof that the breach caused the accident.

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed. Tomlinson LJ gave the judgment, with which Moore-Bick LJ and Sir Robin Jacob agreed.

1. Liability for breach of either Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 or Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 required proof of a causal link between the breach and the injury. The legal burden of proving that link remained with the claimant.
2. In a usual manual-handling case, an injury may itself provide a prima facie causal connection where it falls within the risk created by the operation. In that event, an employer which has failed to assess the risk or take appropriate reducing steps may bear an evidential burden to show that its breach was not a cause. The authorities, including O’Neill v DSG Retail Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1139, Egan v Central Manchester & Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 1424, and Ghaith v Indesit Co UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 642, did not remove the causation requirement.
3. Assuming, without deciding, that the post-delivery task required an assessment and risk-reducing steps under Regulation 4(1)(b), the accident did not fall within any risk created by that task. On the judge’s findings, the respondent was not disadvantaged by the post and her misjudgment of footing was an ordinary risk of using stairs. Carrying post was merely the occasion of the injury, not its cause. Regulation 3 added nothing to that analysis.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the council’s appeal and dismissed the claim.
• Brighton County Court sitting at Lewes: His Honour Judge Coltart found that the claimant had simply misjudged her footing, but gave judgment for her on the basis of the council’s failure to carry out a risk assessment.