I'm sure this is an old chestnut but can anyone give me the benefit of their experience on this one ?

An employee wants to borrow a petrol engined hedge cutter ( hand held ) for the weekend. I expect it will be used by her and her partner who is not an employee. He may have no practical experience of the machine. If an accident occurred, could there be any liability on the Company ?

I know it is easier to just say no, but I need a more explicit answer than that. My take on it is that they are not at work and the cutter was'nt sold to them, so the Company could not be held responsible for any mishaps.

Any thoughts ?

Hi murrayphillips, it may be useful to consider your question in a wider context: would you feel comfortable lending the company fork lift truck to an untrained employee, or inviting a visitor to use your circular saw? Would you let the daughter of an employee borrow the Chairman's Bentley without verifying she was competent to drive that vehicle?

The hedge trimmer is a dangerous item of plant, capable of amputation of fingers or causing serious other injuries.

It would be prudent to either i) provide training in how to use the equipment [for all users] or ii) say no.

In my opinion, in the event of an accident there would be a good basis for a liability claim. The claimant would stand a good chance of being successful on the basis that you breached a duty of care which caused harm. No reference to HASAWA, PUWER would be needed.

I agree that the equipment must be in good order and that some form of instructions should accompany the equipment (preferably the manufacturers which being company property probably are not available).
As I do not know of a training course that an employee would go on to use a hedge trimmer, I don't think Lantra or NPCT do one, I think that general instructions would be OK.
We used to lend equipment to our employees quite regularly but they signed a document that said they were competent to use the equipment (as proved by training records) and that they would be the only ones using it. They also signed that the equipment had been inspected by them, was in a good working condition and would be returned in the same condition or repair costs would be charged.
We never had a problem but our equipment was used by our trained employees not their other halves.

Take Care

Some interesting answers. I assume you mean civil liability, i.e. in the event of being sue for personal injury.

Just because the kit was defective or just because there was an accident does NOT necessarily incur ANY liability. It's worth reminding ourselves of the basis of a successful PI claim

1. The a duty was owed
2. That duty was breached
3. That the injury or loss was as a result of that breach

I suggest any reference to HASAWA would be fruitless as this does not confer a right to civil action, and I think it unlikely in these circumstances that PUWER etc would be of much help as these tend to relate to employees, and I would guess that any person being injured wouldn't be regarded as an employee at that point in time.

However, I am cautious of the suggestion that there couldn't be any 'come back' on the company because the use of the kit wasn't work related! I think that's a rather simplistic approach and certainly NOT the advice that I would give any employer in the same circumstances! I suggest that reality is that there COULD be liability, as always, depending on the individual circumstances of the case.

However, I do tend to agree with the two latter posts. Take a risk based approach, ensure that your kit is in good order (which it should be anyway) and provide the necessary instructions and if necessary a quick bit of 'hands on' training and information. While a hedge cutter could cut off a finger (mind you most modern ones have two hand guards) I for one would feel reasonably happy to loan kit that could be bought off the shelf from any number of retailers, so long as reasonable safeguards are in place.

In saying all that , I know that many companies have a blanket – NO loaning policy, and that is their right and I don't have any issue with it.