Description
Proof: Liability: Slipping on ice and snow covered surface in the course of employment, resulting in injury. The pursuer was employed by the Defenders as a home carer. She required to make a home visit to a patient on an evening in December 2010. The conditions in the area had, for some time been icy and snowy. The pursuer attended at the patients address. She was aware that the ground was slippery due to the ice and snow. She was wearing flat soled shoes with poor grip. She had received no specific footwear from her employers, nor any footwear equipment which might be used to prevent slipping. She did not telephone her employers. She felt that the visit to the patient could not be abandoned as it involved matters such as personal hygiene, which the patient was unable to attend to herself. The pursuer slipped and fell, injuring herself. She brought an action against her employers under common law and in terms of breaches of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. Evidence was led by the pursuer from Mr Greasley who had an engineering degree, a law degree and a number of years of experience in the health and safety at work field. The defenders in turn led evidence from their business development manager for health and safety.
Considered: whether Mr Greasley was an expert; the extent to which the pursuer had been trained about what to do in such circumstances; the impact of the defenders failure to advise the pursuer about footwear or to provide her with protective footwear equipment; the availability of specific attachable footwear such as devices called Yaktrax 'add ons'; the need for risk assessments in the circumstances and the need for employers to choose and supply correct footwear for their employees; contributory negligence.
Held: the Defenders had failed in their duties under both Regulations; they had failed appropriately to risk assess; had they done so, they would have identified the risk that the snow and ice caused and the available protective equipment on the market; they failed to provide suitable protective equipment; that Mr Greasley was an expert; that the pursuer was not contributoroly negligence to any extent- she had been reasonable in proceeding to attend to the patient in the circumstances and there was no evidence to suggest that there was another protocol which she should have known about and followed. Decree in favour of the pursuer.
