Smith (Appellant) v Northamptonshire County Council (Respondents), [2009] UKHL 27

The appellant, Mrs Smith, was employed by the respondents (“the council”) as a driver and carer. As part of her job she was required to collect people who were in need of care from their homes and take them by minibus to a day centre. One of those whom she had to collect, Mrs Cotter, was confined to a wheelchair. To get her out of her house the appellant had to take her down a wooden ramp outside the doors which led from the living room to a patio. This was a task that she performed many times without incident. But as she was doing this on 1 December 2004 an edge of the ramp crumbled beneath her foot, causing her to stumble and sustain injury.

The appellant raised proceedings against the council, claiming damages. Her case proceeded based upon an allegation that the council was in breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The question which the judge had to decide was whether the1998 Regulations applied in this case. The judge held that they did apply because the ramp was “work equipment” as defined by reg 2(1) and it was being “used at work” within reg 3(1). It followed that there was a breach of reg 5(1). The council appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It held that the ramp was not work equipment used by the appellant at work for the purposes of the Regulations. The most significant factors in this case were that the ramp had been installed by people other than the council's own employees (it had been placed there by the NHS), that the council had no ability to maintain it and that in ordinary parlance it was part of Mrs Cotter's premises.

The appellant appealed to the House of Lords.

By a majority of 3:2, the House dismissed the appeal. The majority held that liability for the condition of the ramp should not attach to the respondent employer. The respondent council did not supply or repair the ramp. It had inspected it at an earlier stage, but, it was merely being careful of its employees' safety and such care should not give rise to liability which is not otherwise covered by its statutory duty. Further, the ramp did not come within the respondent's undertaking or establishment.