Harris v BRB (Residuary) Ltd & Anor

Harris v BRB (Residuary) Ltd & Anor

The employer was liable in both common law and statutory duty for failing to provide ear protection and adequate information to Mr Harris, who was exposed to noise above 85dB(A)leq, as the evidence showed the risks were known, precautions were feasible, and the employer's failure to act was not justified. The trial judge erred in finding the provision of ear protection impracticable; the appeal is allowed and damages awarded.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Robert Harris; 1st Defendant/respondent: BRB (Residuary) Ltd; 2nd Defendant/respondent: English Welsh and Scottish Railway Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court, Judgment Delivered by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Industrial Deafness, Noise at Work Regulations, Breach of Statutory Duty, Personal Injury, Damages
Tort Law Employment Law Occupational Health and Safety Employer's Duty of Care Industrial Deafness Noise at Work Regulations Breach of Statutory Duty Personal Injury +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Harris

Claimant/appellant

BRB (Residuary) Ltd

1st Defendant/respondent

English Welsh and Scottish Railway Ltd

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Leeds County Court, Judgment Delivered by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer owed a duty of care at noise levels above 85dB(A)leq but below 90dB(A)leq
  2. 2 Whether the employer breached its common law and statutory duties by failing to provide ear protection and information
  3. 3 Whether the provision of ear protection was practicable

Ratio Decidendi

The employer was liable in both common law and statutory duty for failing to provide ear protection and adequate information to Mr Harris, who was exposed to noise above 85dB(A)leq, as the evidence showed the risks were known, precautions were feasible, and the employer's failure to act was not justified. The trial judge erred in finding the provision of ear protection impracticable; the appeal is allowed and damages awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Award of damages of £10,000 in favour of Mr Harris
  • Substitution of order dismissing the claim with an order for damages