Head of Personal Injury, Andrew McLaughlin instructed by Emma Jackson of DAC Beachcroft, has successfully defended a claim for Functional Neurological Disorder (FND).
The claim, worth potentially in the millions of pounds was brought by a former associate of US law firm Decherts LLP, who suffered a head injury when she was struck by the top part of a large handle of an office door which came away as she pulled it open, causing her to fall to the floor. The claimant contended that the injury had caused the loss of her career.
Of interest to all personal injury lawyers, the case involved the interpretation and application of the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. There have been no reported decisions on the 1969 Act in recent times, but its importance has increased since the removal of civil liability for breach of the ‘six pack’ Regulations, such as the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
There were extensive submissions as regards the distinction between the workplace and equipment which is revealed by the lengthy devotion to much of the judgment to this point. Ultimately, the judge accepted Andrew’s arguments, made by reference to case law and dicta, that the door handle was not equipment within the meaning and scope of the 1969 Act (see paragraphs 11 to 58 of the judgment – link to judgment). Separately, the judge found that even if the handle was equipment within the meaning of the 1969 Act there was no liability because the claimant had not proven that it had come loose due the fault of a third party.
The judge preferred the evidence of the defendant’s mechanical engineer, Dr Jan Graham of Halliwell Forensics, to that of Mr Andrew Hill of SSG. He accepted Andrew’s critique of Mr Hill’s approach and his evidence (para 63 of the judgment) and found that the design and construction of the fastenings were adequate, and they had not been damaged prior to the incident.
The judge held expressly though unusual in law the incident was just an accident – without fault on the part of the defendant or anyone else.
As a result the claim was dismissed.
Full judgment can be found here
Find out more about Andrew here.