King v Carron Phoenix Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff brought an action against Company A, his employer, claiming damages for lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow), which he alleged was caused by his work and the fault of Company A. The Plaintiff had worked since 1972 as a mechanical maintenance engineer at Company A's manufacturing premises in The City, where sinks and basins were produced. His duties included changing tool settings on production machinery, involving the removal and replacement of bolts using a hand-held spanner requiring substantial force. Over time, production changes and staff reductions increased the frequency and intensity of these tasks.

The Plaintiff claimed that Company A was negligent in failing to assess the nature of his work, provide appropriate advice, supply power tools, and reduce the time spent on these tasks, including by rotating duties or increasing maintenance staff per shift. He also alleged breach of Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, contending that the manual handling involved posed a risk of injury which Company A failed to mitigate.

Proof before answer was heard over four days. The court considered medical and expert evidence, including reports from the Plaintiff's general practitioner, an orthopaedic surgeon, and an ergonomics expert. The case ultimately turned on whether the Plaintiff's condition was caused by his work and whether Company A was at fault.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's lateral epicondylitis was caused by the nature of his work at Company A.
2. Whether Company A was negligent at common law in failing to assess and mitigate risks associated with the Plaintiff's work.
3. Whether Company A breached Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 by failing to avoid the need for manual handling operations involving a risk of injury.
4. The appropriate measure of damages if liability was established.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Company A owed a duty to assess the work and provide advice to reduce injury risk.
• Company A failed to provide power tools that would reduce the force required to remove and replace bolts.
• Company A failed to reduce the time spent on the manual task, for example by rotating duties or increasing maintenance staff per shift.
• The manual handling involved in using the spanner constituted a risk of injury under Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.
• Damages were sought for pain, suffering, and future loss of employability.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff had not established that his condition was caused by his work.
• The manual handling operation did not involve transporting or supporting a load as defined by the Regulations.
• Power tools were impracticable and would not have eased the work.
• Rotation of duties was not feasible as no other qualified personnel were available on shifts.
• The Plaintiff’s claims for damages, particularly for future loss, were overstated.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined expert evidence to determine causation. The ergonomics expert concluded that while lateral epicondylitis could be caused by work involving forceful and repetitive tasks, the Plaintiff’s specific work was not sufficiently repetitive to establish a clear causal link. The expert noted the Plaintiff had performed similar work for many years without injury and that changes in production and staffing levels, which could have increased risk, were not clearly established in timing to coincide with symptom onset.

The orthopaedic surgeon’s evidence was largely supportive of the ergonomics expert but added no independent basis for causation. The court found that the Plaintiff had not proved on the balance of probabilities that his condition was caused by his work.

Regarding negligence, the court accepted that a reasonable employer would have been alerted to potential risks by 1990 and would have been expected to assess the tasks. However, the Plaintiff failed to prove that Company A breached any duty to prevent injury, as there was no evidence that advice, power tools, or rotation would have been effective or feasible.

On the statutory claim, the court held that the manual handling regulations did not apply because the task did not involve transporting or supporting a "load" as defined. The spanner and bolts were not considered moveable discrete loads under the Regulations.

Damages were considered on the basis of the injury’s nature and prognosis. The court accepted the Plaintiff’s evidence on pain and future risk of disability but found some submissions exaggerated. A reasonable solatium was assessed at £10,000, with additional sums for future loss of employability and costs. However, as liability was not established, no damages were awarded.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s claim and pronounced decree of absolvitor, effectively ruling in favour of Company A.

The direct consequence is that the Plaintiff receives no damages. The court did not establish new legal precedent but clarified the application of causation principles in occupational injury claims and the interpretation of manual handling regulations with respect to what constitutes a "load".