Chris, like several others in the responses above, I don't think you've read the opinion of the judge either! Although the pursuer brought in the question of risk assessment and seemed to make it the focus of their case -- and two of the expert witnesses were in the witness box for several days explaining risk assessment techniques as required by regulation 3 -- the judge said that much of it was irrelevant. She said: "In my view the effect of regulation 3 cannot be to create in common law a duty to assess risk in the manner required by the regulations. I consider that most of the averments, and the evidence about risk assessment is irrelevant. The elaborate mechanism for risk assessment under statute, with the hierarchy of risk which is involved, cannot define what is required at common law. The risks which must be foreseen under statute and common law are not the same. The lengthy and detailed consideration of the requirements of statutory risk assessment, the factors to be taken into account, the hierarchy of factors to be looked at, are all matters which seem to have scant bearing on the simple question of whether the defenders were in this case in breach of their duty of care". In other words, the outcome of this case was NOT to do with risk assessment. The judges comments about statutory risk assessment would, in my view, suggest though, that the expert witnesses over egged the requirements. However, as a judge dealing with civil law cases she may not be very familiar with the detail of health and safety legislation. With regard to your comment about the paint brushes being pointy the Judge said there was no reason why these brushes could not be used at a desk or table (although one expert witness said the brush should not be used in any circumstances) because they could not reasonably be said to have been a foreseeable risk of injury in those circumstances (ie at a table); it was the circumstances of the use of a brush which effectively created the risk, notwithstanding that the brush itself might have been identified as a hazard for statutory risk assessment purposes (personally I don't think it would). The circumstances were working on the floor in unstable positions (kneeling or possibly crouching) with other children moving about in close proximity. In my experience the outcome of a civil law case has to be considered very carefully and knee-jerk reactions avoided. A long time ago I recall a successful claim being made after a child was injured by a bottle of pop exploding in a fridge. The insurance company which paid out sent out information to local authorities and several insurance officers immediately wrote to schools etc. saying pop bottles must not be kept in the fridge! Health and safety staff pointed out the error of their ways.