Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
I think it means that: Trussing chickens is not manual handling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
More of a case for WRULDS than manual handling if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert S Woods
Which piece of legislation would you have cited re: the civil claim for compensation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
It's a very narrow interpretation I think, Rob.
The Regulations definition is:
“manual handling operations” means any transporting or supporting of a load (including the lifting, putting down, pushing, pulling, carrying or moving thereof) by hand or by bodily force.
'Moving thereof' hasn't been considered. I would say the operation definitely involves moving the object - and repeatedly.
But there again, I'm not a learned Judge...
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I think the judgement is correct.
If it was truly meant to include such things as trussing a chicken (or any other simple task) wouldn't it have been entitled the
"Any Type of Work at All Regulations 1992"? (AT_WAR regs 92 hmm... sounds good)
I think the Manual Handling Operations Regs were designed with lifting, translocating, etc., in mind - not each and every physical activity.
I don't know what civil solution the worker has to her injuries or than negligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Agreed, some common sense has prevailed. With regards to any civil redress, a claim could still be sought for negligence from a duty of care. The only subject I can think of is a lack of monitoring for WRULDS and/or general health care, assuming that is the case.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The real issue is that the lawyers advised this woman that breach of statutory duty was the right path to go. It does make the civil claim easier to prove but then one is impaled on definitions such as happened here.
The more difficult route under section 2 HASAWA was the probable correct path. It involves, however, effort in establishing that the system of work was not without risk in terms of the act. The burden of proof is thus harder to fulfil.
Poor legal advice is therefore at issue and I think the judge is alluding to this in his discussion.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Implications for whom?
The injury seems to relate to RSI.There is a suggestion that the IP knew of the Carpal Tunnel symptoms, but no indication that the employer had applied any due diligence to establish that, or to take it into account via risk assessment etc.
Would an RSI claim by a typist be best pursued on the basis of employer breach of DSE Regs? I suggest not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Robert,
It is important to remember that a civil claim for compensation does not require a breach of statutory duty. A search of this site will provide ample information on the conditions necessary for such a claim to succeed.
In regard to the implications arising from the judgement, two things come to mind, one is that interpretations that lead to absurd conclusions will not be accepted by the courts, and therefore must be avoided by the enforcement authorities, employers and professional advisers, whether they relate to manual handling operations or any other type of operation at work.
Secondly, interpretations of legislation, specifically words used in legislation, must be given their ordinary meaning unless otherwise qualified within the statute. This is why the judgement distinguished between a “scientific” interpretation of “loads” and the ordinary one concerning loads that present a risk to humans handling them. This same principal should apply to the interpretation of other statutes. Remember again our old friend on the Clapham omnibus.
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.