0800 0 224 224
Find your local office
01 May 2008
The Court of Appeal ruled that where a risk assessment would have revealed a risk of discomfort or fatigue but not a foreseeable risk of pathological injury, then the failure to have one creates no breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998.
The claimant was registered blind. He was very independent before this accident. He could visit his local shop without assistance and without using his stick.
The claimant had to open a set of heavy double doors at a school. She secured them with a hook and eye catch to the wall. As she pushed her trolley through the doors, one came free of its catch and closed heavily on her wrist, injuring her.
The defendants made a pre-action application for disclosure of the claimant’s medical records. At first instance the District Judge held that they should not be disclosed because they were private records covered by Article 8 and Article 8(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights, and secondly because they were not relevant “at this stage”.
Under Part 3 – The Courts Case Management Powers – Practice Direction (Mesothelioma Claims) is added to this part as a further fourth supplementing Practice Direction.