Cruz v Lancashire Police & Anor

Cruz v Lancashire Police & Anor

The partially open cell door did not present a real or material foreseeable risk of injury to the claimant or her colleagues. The corridor was not rendered unsafe or inefficient by the door's position, and there was no breach of Regulation 5. The judge's findings were correct and within the ambit of reasonable decision-making.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Katie Cruz; Respondent/defendant: The Chief Constable of Lancashire Police; Employer (non Party): Group 4 Security Care and Justice Services (G4S)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Liability and Causation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Strict Liability, Foreseeability of Risk, Workplace Regulations
Occupational Health and Safety Employment Law Tort Law Workplace Safety Strict Liability Foreseeability of Risk Workplace Regulations

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

Katie Cruz

Appellant/claimant

The Chief Constable of Lancashire Police

Respondent/defendant

Group 4 Security Care and Justice Services (G4S)

Employer (non Party)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Liability and Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partially open cell door constituted a breach of Regulation 5 of The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing to maintain the workplace in an efficient state
  2. 2 Whether the partially open door presented a foreseeable risk of injury to the claimant, a civilian detention officer
  3. 3 Whether the corridor was rendered unsafe or not in an efficient state by the position of the door

Ratio Decidendi

The partially open cell door did not present a real or material foreseeable risk of injury to the claimant or her colleagues. The corridor was not rendered unsafe or inefficient by the door's position, and there was no breach of Regulation 5. The judge's findings were correct and within the ambit of reasonable decision-making.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed