Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Ltd

Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Ltd

The employer was not in breach of the 1998 Regulations as the equipment was suitable and properly maintained; however, the failure to carry out a risk assessment was negligent and causative of the injury. The claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50% for not holding the tool firmly despite knowledge of the risk.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Terence Joseph Griffiths; Defendant/appellant: Vauxhall Motors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Risk Assessment, Contributory Negligence, Work Equipment Suitability, Breach of Statutory Duty
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Tort Law Employer's Liability Risk Assessment Contributory Negligence Work Equipment Suitability Breach of Statutory Duty

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Joseph Griffiths

Claimant/respondent

Vauxhall Motors Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached statutory duties under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether failure to carry out a risk assessment was causative of the injury
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The employer was not in breach of the 1998 Regulations as the equipment was suitable and properly maintained; however, the failure to carry out a risk assessment was negligent and causative of the injury. The claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50% for not holding the tool firmly despite knowledge of the risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with no order as to costs