Sloan v The Governors of Rastrick High School
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
- MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Tort Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this appeal concerning a claim for damages for personal injuries at work, the court upheld the dismissal of the claim, confirming that the employer had met the statutory obligations under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. The appellant, a learning support assistant, experienced chronic pain after pushing a student in a wheelchair. The court found that the Recorder had correctly relied on evidence as a whole and that the employer had taken appropriate measures to mitigate risk as per the legal requirements.
Judgment
Mr Justice David Richards :
This is an appeal against the dismissal of a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered at work. The claim was dismissed by Mrs Recorder Stocken sitting in the Bradford County Court following a three-day trial. This appeal is brought with the permission of Christopher Clarke LJ given on a renewed oral application.
The claim is based on breach of statutory duty, in respect of obligations imposed on the respondents as the appellant’s employer under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2793) (the MH Regulations). Damages in excess of £50,000 were claimed.
The appellant was employed by the respondents, the Governors of Rastrick High School in Brighouse, West Yorkshire (the school), as a learning support assistant. The school is a mainstream secondary school, with 1,400 pupils of whom about 40 had special educational needs, with 8 needing some degree of wheelchair use. The appellant had responsibility for providing support and assistance to pupils with mobility and similar physical problems. Her work including pushing students in their wheelchairs between classrooms and elsewhere in the school, and assistance with other activities requiring movement.
The appellant’s employment commenced on 1 September 2008. She attended training sessions on the first two days and spent the next three days shadowing another learning support assistant. She started working on her own on 6 September 2008. On 17 September she experienced pain in her shoulder and back after pushing one particular student (the student) in her wheelchair. She saw her GP about this on Monday 22 September and was off work for the whole of that week. She was prescribed pain relief and muscle relaxants.
The appellant returned to work on 29 September 2008 and arrangements were made so that she was not required to push wheelchairs, although she may have done so on one or two occasions. She was off work for unrelated health reasons for the period 13 to 20 October 2008. She returned to work on 21 October 2008 but gave one week’s notice on 23 October, and left the school’s employment.
The appellant’s case was that she suffered a soft tissue injury in her cervical spine and in her right, dominant, shoulder as a consequence of pushing one or more students in their wheelchairs, resulting in chronic pain in her shoulder and back which continued down to the trial.
She claimed that, in breach of duty under the MH Regulations, the school had failed