In Chisholm v D & R Hankins (Manea) Ltd  EWHC 3407 (QB) the High Court found liability established on the grounds of an inadequate risk assessment by the defendant employer. The judge also made important observations about the relevance of statutory duties after s.69 of the ERRA 2013.
“Breach of this regulation does not, in itself, give rise to a right of action in damages – see s69(3) Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The conclusions set out above on breach of duty are not based on the 1989 Regulations. Those regulations are, however, entirely consistent with the common law obligations and it is likely that if Hankins had given sufficient thought to its statutory obligations then, in this respect, it would have complied with its common law duty of care to Mr Chisholm.”
The claimant was seriously injured when cleaning the trailer of a tipper truck. …
View original post 2,092 more words