Harris v Bartrums Haulage and Storage Ltd & Anor

An employer’s common-law duty requires reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks, including mistakes which employees may make. The assessment must consider training, supervision, risk assessment and suitable equipment, together with the likelihood and consequences of the risk and the effectiveness and proportionality of proposed precautions.

A breach in failing to induct an employee properly or to conduct a site-specific risk assessment is not causative unless the claimant proves that it would probably have led to precautions which would have prevented the injury. An employer need not adopt every possible additional safeguard where an existing system is reasonably effective. A claimant’s failure to take an elementary safety precaution may constitute substantial contributory negligence.

The claimant, an HGV driver employed by the first defendant, was seriously injured when a tractor unit and trailer rolled away during coupling at a sloping haulage yard. The trailer had been left by the second defendant, a self-employed subcontractor.

The claimant alleged that the second defendant had failed to apply the trailer parking brake and that the first defendant had failed in training, induction, risk assessment, safe system of work and equipment. A preliminary issue trial was directed on liability. The central questions were how the brakes came to be disengaged, whether either defendant was negligent, and whether any breach caused the injury.

1. Liability. The claim was dismissed. The second defendant had applied the trailer parking brake before leaving the trailer. The first defendant was not negligent in training or in providing a safe system of work and equipment.
2. Employer’s duty. The applicable common-law question was what precautions a reasonably prudent employer should have deployed against foreseeable events, including known employee mistakes. Relevant measures could include training, risk assessment and suitable equipment. The duty was not confined to precautions commonly adopted by other employers.
3. Induction and risk assessment. The first defendant’s practice of providing a handbook and obtaining a signature without ensuring genuine induction was unsatisfactory. A formal risk assessment of the yard should also have been undertaken. Those breaches were not causative. The claimant was already a qualified and experienced driver who understood the relevant coupling procedures, and a proper assessment would not have required additional measures beyond those reasonably provided.
4. Safe system and equipment. The system included driver training and experience, explicit warnings when the tractor parking brake was disengaged, and the requirement to apply both tractor and trailer brakes before connecting the red airline. Chocks, automatic braking, a kerb or alternative parking arrangements were possible, but were not necessary precautions in the circumstances. The existing safeguards were reasonably effective and proportionate.
5. Contributory negligence. The claimant failed to apply the tractor handbrake, ignored audible and visual warnings, and connected the red airline. His failure was the principal cause of the rollaway. His failure to disconnect the airline after the vehicle moved was understandable in the ensuing panic. If liability had been established, an 80 per cent deduction would have been appropriate.

Not stated in the judgment.