Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc

Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc

The absolute duty under Regulation 7(1) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 applies only to the risks for which the protective equipment was provided. The employer is not strictly liable for injuries unrelated to those risks; liability for such injuries arises only if there is a breach of the common law duty of care. In this case, the injury (frostbite from a hole in the boot) was not related to the risk (impact injury) for which the boots were supplied, and there was no breach of the common law duty of care.

Parties
Appellant: Bryan Evans Fytche; Respondent: Wincanton Logistics PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Protective Equipment, Employer's Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Tort Law Personal Protective Equipment Employer's Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan Evans Fytche

Appellant

Wincanton Logistics PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 7(1) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 imposes an absolute duty on employers to maintain all aspects of personal protective equipment, or only those aspects related to the specific risk for which the equipment was provided
  2. 2 Whether the employer is liable for injury caused by a defect in the equipment unrelated to the risk the equipment was intended to address

Ratio Decidendi

The absolute duty under Regulation 7(1) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 applies only to the risks for which the protective equipment was provided. The employer is not strictly liable for injuries unrelated to those risks; liability for such injuries arises only if there is a breach of the common law duty of care. In this case, the injury (frostbite from a hole in the boot) was not related to the risk (impact injury) for which the boots were supplied, and there was no breach of the common law duty of care.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs agreed at £5,189
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused