Posted By Chris Cooper-Abbs Dear All, A bit of a long shot but didn't know if anyone could help, i am looking for case examples in regard to fit for purpose. The debate about ‘fit for purpose’ would, in the worst case scenario, have to be challenged in a court of law. (Have there been any cases that people know of?) I am aware of one case against a Fire Authority where an employee suffered from burns to the hands. The case detail identifies the supply of non-CE marked fire-fighting gloves, which were found to be inadequate. The Fire Authority were subsequently prosecuted and fined £1500.00. Any help or direction greatly appreciated. Chris

Posted By Chris Pope There is an interesting article on the need to use equipment which meets the relevant British Standard (or equivalent) written up in the Construction News 4/2/03. It concerns a tunneling skip which is mounted on a bogey (wheeled train like trolley) which fell off and crushed a miner called Gillespie because it did not have locating lugs to prevent it slipping off (specified in BS 6164 1990) Gillespie won £670,000 compensation. The court recognised that the men were doing a difficult job in difficult conditions - the employer must give them a safe place of work

Posted By PaulA Chris.. Look at page 14 of March's SHP. The accident whilst using the railroad trailer behind the RRV (Rail Road Vehicle). the judge stated that the vehicle was not SUITABLE for the purpose of carrying personnel.... Hope this helps.. Regards Paul A