0370 270 6000

Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Limited, Court of Appeal

18 March 2003
The issues

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 – Risk Assessment – contributory negligence – Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The facts

The Claimant fractured his left hand when a gun fitting seatbelt bolt brackets to car body shells kicked back. This had happened in the past and the Defendant had been put on notice. After the accident, when the equipment was referred to he manufacturer, it was found that the kickback occurred because the triggering had been miss-aligned and that the equipment was working within its operative parameters. No Risk Assessment had been carried out by the Defendant. The Recorder found:-

(i) That there was no inherent defect in the equipment and no breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998;

(ii) That the Defendant should have carried out a Risk Assessment before the accident under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and that the fact that no Risk Assessment had been carried out, gave rise to a risk of injury to the Claimant;

(iii) That the Claimant was experienced and had complained of kickback in the past and had contributed to the accident by not holding the gun with care. The Claimant’s damages were therefore reduced by 50%.

The Claimant and Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. Regulations 4 and 5 of the 1998 Regulations dealt with the physical condition of the equipment. Regulations 8 and 9 dealt with training. In dealing with Regulations 4 and 5 the Recorder was right in finding that there was no breach. Work equipment was not to be regarded as unsuitable for the purpose of the 1998 Regulations when injury results from in adequate control of mis-handling of equipment by an employee.

2. A Risk Assessment would on a balance of probabilities have identified the risk of injury. That would have given rise to the Claimant being given warning and instruction. If that had happened, it was more likely than not that the accident would not have happened.

3. The Judgment as to contributory negligence would not be interfered with.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up