Court sets out place of health and safety duties

No round up of recent cases would be complete without mention of Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, in which the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the pursuer’s appeal and, in doing so, addressed a number of important points.

The pursuer, a home carer employed by the defenders, was injured when she lost her footing and fell on an icy path while visiting a housebound client.

At first instance, Lord McEwan found the defenders liable on the basis that their risk assessments were unsuitable and insufficient; they had failed to consider protective personal equipment (PPE) for footwear, and were in breach of several workplace regulations. The Inner House then upheld the defenders’ appeal.

Some of the points of significance in the Supreme Court’s decision:

• It was confirmed that health and safety could properly be regarded as a recognised body of science or experience which could be the subject of expert evidence. Clear guidance on the admissibility of expert evidence in civil cases was provided.
• It was highlighted that statutory duties which, as a result of s 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, can no longer be relied on to found a claim for damages, nevertheless help inform the common law duty of care owed by employers.
• The importance of the role of risk assessments was stressed. These should be a means by employers examine and evaluate risks and take steps to remove/minimise these – they should be a “blueprint for action” (Allison v London Underground Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 71). Risk assessment is now central to consideration of an employer’s common law breach.

For a more detailed explanation of the significance of the Supreme Court’s decisions, see Iona Brown’s article at Journal, March 2016, 20.