Work Equipment and Employers’ Liability – Injury Lawyers Advice

Work Equipment and Employers’ Liability – Injury Lawyers Advice

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (or “PUWER” for short) was brought in to ensure that all equipment used in most work environments meets a minimum standard of safety. It also requires that the equipment is safely maintained by employers.

What falls within PUWER?

PUWER has a very wide remit and includes employers which provide equipment for their employees to carry out their work. It includes local councils, businesses and charities. The equipment which falls within the remit is similarly wide in scope. It includes any machinery, appliance, apparatus, or a combination of components which form a common end but work as one. This is an extremely wide list of employers and equipment but it is necessary keep the employers providing equipment in its remit.

If it breaks and injures you, who is at fault?

There is a something which, in legal terms, is called “strict liability”. In the instance of PUWER this means that the employer can be liable for the injury which their employees have sustained from the equipment without the incident actually being their fault. If for example there was nothing that the employer could have done to have prevented the equipment breaking and injures someone, they can still be held liable.

This is important as it puts an important responsibility on the employer to ensure that the work equipment is maintained correctly. It also provides employees with a safety net so that they can feel safe in the knowledge that the machinery should be maintained to a high standard and, if not, they can be compensated if they are injured.

Examples

• If a factory employees’ hand was trapped in a conveyor belt because the machine was faulty and switched on when it shouldn’t have as the employee was cleaning it, they should be able to claim against their employer. As the liability is strict the employer is likely to be liable.
• If a forklift truck suddenly stops and loses power due to becoming defective, causing the employee to jolt and injure themselves, the employer should be liable.
• A real case of strict liability involved an employee of the Post Office. Whilst he was delivering on his rounds his bicycle’s front wheel locked which threw him over the handlebars, resulting in serious injury. The cause of the incident was due to the stirrup on the brake being faulty and part of it lodged into the wheel. The judge found that the defect could not have been noticed during a routine inspection and even a rigorous examination may not have revealed it. But still, it was found that the Post Office was in breach of their duty to provide safe work equipment and they were found liable. Stark v Post Office [2000].