Manual Handling Case Studies
The manual handling case studies below are from no-win-no-fee
solicitors web sites, names and employers involved have been removed.
- Lifting
injury due to inadequate manual handling training
-
A Sheffield woman received £4000 in compensation after a
soft tissue injury to her neck. This was caused by the lifting of
clinical waste bags in her job. She received no specific training for
this work, was never told not to carry waste bags over a certain weight
and was not informed there was a trolley to aid her with the task.
- Refresher
training
-
Name -v- National parcel delivery firm. - A failure to
have a worker on a refresher course for manual handling put the
employers in breach of 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulations. The claim for
compensation for injuries sustained was therefore upheld and the amount
of £6650 in damages awarded together with interest to the pursuer.
- Employer
not provide with proper equipment
-
Employed at a marble cutting works, the claimant was not
provided with proper manual handling equipment with which to transport
pieces of marble to the cutting bed. As a result of this he had to push
the pieces of marble from a lower level up on to the cutting bed and
whilst he was doing so he sustained a disc protrusion for which he had
surgery. The claimant was able to return to work and subsequently
settled his case for £20,000 in compensation.
- Manual
handling injury caused by lack of equipment
-
A man received £20,000 compensation after a manual
handling injury caused by lifting heavy bags without the aid of a
tail-lift. As a result of this, Mr X had to change his job to one
involving only light duties as he could not be involved in any lifting
activities.
- Foreseeability
of risk
-
Name -v- A Scottish council - A worker injured himself
whilst trying to return a 3 piece ladder weight 50kg to his van. It got
stuck in grass causing him to lose his balance. A man lifting a ladder this way
involved a foreseeable possibility of injury. This case called for
Debate on the Defender's Motion to dismiss the action prior to any
court hearing on evidence. It was disputed by the Defenders that the
incident in question came under the terms of the Manual Handling
Regulations and that there was foreseeability of risk. The Judgment
confirmed that the ladder was
considered a load in terms of Reg.2(1), and that a man lifting a ladder
this way involved a foreseeable possibility of injury.
- Manual
handling tasks
-
Name -v- Multi national distribution company - At Debate
it was held that the operation of closing a lorry tailgate was, under
the terms of the Regulations, capable of being a manual handling
operation, on the basis that the Regulations were not designed merely
to deal with the lifting of heavy loads, but were designed to cover a
much wider range of hazards, including something secured by a hinge to
another thing.
- Inadequate
risk assessment
-
Name -v- Regional electrical testing firm. - The
Defenders had carried out a risk assessment in relation to the work
process involved, which later resulted in injury. The work involved the
forming of a loop in a metal cable. The Pursuer had general
instructions when starting work but none on this operation, and had not
been shown the risk assessment. A case was successful under the Manual
Handling Regulations. It was deemed in this case that there was one
process of pushing and pulling the wire, this operation could only be
done manually so although there was no breach of 4(1)(a), there was a
breach of 4(1)(b) because the risk assessment was neither suitable nor
sufficient and no steps were taken to prevent or reduce the risk of
personal injury.
