RISK ASSESSMENT - 18.11.2010

The devil is in the detail

The case

A cleaner, Mr Threfall (T), who was employed by Hull City Council (H), suffered a cut to his hand whilst cleaning a property. His injury was caused by a sharp piece of metal that had been put into a bin bag. Although T was wearing gloves, they didn’t provide him with sufficient protection. In fact, it appears that they offered almost no protection at all because T suffered from a severed artery and nerve, plus damage to the tendon. T has subsequently been left with a permanently crooked finger.

Compensation claim

Following his injury, T made a claim for compensation against H. His case was based upon the fact that H had breached its statutory duty to ensure his health, safety and welfare. However, H lost his case and the appeal. This is because H was able to produce a basic risk assessment for the work. This document stated that basic gardening gloves (which H was wearing at the time of the incident) would offer suitable and sufficient protection against injuries caused by sharp objects.

Try again

Undeterred, H took his case to the Court of Appeal. Here, it was suggested that the original court should have considered Regulation 6 of the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992. This indicates that an employer must conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment to ensure that any personal protective equipment (PPE) provided is suitable for the work being carried out. The Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the risk assessment carried out by H didn’t cover all of the risks, nor did it consider exactly what type of gloves should be provided (see The next step).

The judgment

The assessment failed to recognise there was a risk that T might suffer a laceration of the hand as a result of contact with a sharp object which might well be hidden from view and therefore not avoidable by taking ordinary care. T was awarded £3,000 in damages; H was left with a legal bill of over £100,000.

Be careful about being too general

If H had added the words “cut-resistant” before the word “gloves” into its risk assessment, and T had been wearing cut-resistant gloves, neither the accident nor the court cases would have happened.

Tip 1. Only suggest PPE as a control measure in your risk assessments if you’ve taken appropriate steps to manage the risks by other means first. PPE should only ever be a last resort.

Tip 2. You must specify the exact type of PPE necessary to manage the risks accordingly. Stating, for example, “gloves”, “hearing protection”, “respiratory protection” etc. without going into detail isn’t enough. In addition, you must ensure that the type of PPE stated in your assessment is actually what is worn by the staff completing the work.

For further information on different types of glove, visit http://healthandsafety.indicator.co.uk (HS 09.06.04).