Routledge - v - Woolworths plc

Claimant Elaine Routledge
Job title Personnel Administrator (SOC 2000: 4136)
Task description Data entry and clerical duties
Injury Pain in right arm and shoulder
Defendant(s) Woolworths plc (SIC 2007: G47.19)
Court(s) Cambridge County
Case No. ZP201613
Date 18 Nov 2004
Judge(s) His Honour Judge Sennitt
For Claimant
All Claimants Elaine Routledge
Solicitor Pollards
Counsel Mr Julian Shale
Non-Medical expert(s) Dr Celine McKeown (Ergonomics)
Medical expert(s) Mr Shanahan (Orthopaedic Surgery)
(Single Joint Expert)
For Defendant
Solicitor Berrymans Lace Mawer (EC2M 5QN)
Counsel Mr A John Williams
Non-Medical expert(s) Mr Ian A R Galer (Ergonomics)
Medical expert(s) Mr Shanahan (Orthopaedic Surgery)
(Single Joint Expert)
Outcome
Judgment for: Claimant
Injury found: Yes
Work related: Yes
Breach of Statutory Duty: Yes
Defendant negligent: Yes
Damages
General: £ 2,160.00
Special: £ 1,077.70
Other:
TOTAL:
Observations
 
References
 
References to and/or Interpretations of Regulations and HSE Guidance Documents
This County Court Judgment on the 18th November 2004 makes several references to the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, but does not explicitly address individual regulations. There is reference in the Judgment to a failure to carry out adequate risk assessments, which would imply a breach of regulation 2, and to a breach of the common law duty of care in the wrongful placing of the Claimant's monitor to the right of her desk instead of in front of the Claimant and in thereafter making matters worse by moving the screen yet further to the right, but this does not appear to have been considered a breach of regulation 3.

There are also references to both the 1992 and 2003 versions of the guidance on the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations.

V1.02

Regulations
Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Guidance
Display Screen Equipment Work: Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. Guidance on Regulations: L26 1992
 The Schedule
Work with display screen equipment: Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations as amended by the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002. L26 Guidance on Regulations: 2003
 The Schedule
LAWTEL Case report

This case summary is published with the kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com). Lawtel subscribers can access the full report at www.lawtel.com or for a free trial of the service click here.

The claimant, a 50-year-old woman, received £ 3,237.70 for the repetitive strain injury sustained during the course of her employment between April 1998 and June 2000. The claimant suffered pain in her right arm and shoulder.
Claimant: Female: Between 44 and 46 years old at date of accident; 50 years old at date of award.
Employers' Liability: Between 6 April 1998 and 6 June 2000, the claimant was employed by the defendant as a personnel administrator. During the course of her employment, the claimant had to rotate her neck in order to see the computer monitor. The claimant's computer monitor, instead of being placed in front of her, was placed initially at the extreme right hand side of the desk and from late 1998 or 1999 further to the right partly on the desk and partly on a pedestal set of drawers. The position was aggravated by the type of desk and chair provided. The desk had pedestal drawers underneath on the right-hand side which meant that her legs were impeded if she swivelled to the right, resulting in more rotation of her head.

The claimant spent between four and six hours a day using the computer carrying out administrative tasks and some data entry work although none of the tasks required fast repetitive work.

In October 1999, the defendant moved the claimant's computer monitor in front of her at the claimant's request.

The claimant sustained injury and brought an action against the defendant alleging that it was negligent and/or in breach of its statutory duty under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 in failing to operate a safe system of working. The claimant alleged that there was a foreseeable risk of injury as a result of the inadequacies with her workstation.

Liability disputed. The defendant's argued that there was no foreseeable risk of injury.

At trial, the judge held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury both in negligence and under the 1992 Regulations. There was a breach of the common law duty of care in the wrongful placing of the claimant's monitor to the right of her desk instead of in front of the claimant and in thereafter making matters worse by moving the screen yet further to the right. Under the regulations, there was a failure to carry out adequate risk assessments, particularly in April 1998 and the judge was satisfied that such failure was causative of the injuries complained of.
Injuries:The claimant suffered from repetitive strain injury during the course of her employment.
Effects:The claimant's pain symptoms progressed gradually. She suffered pain and tingling in her hand from December 1998 when she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome.

From April 1999, the claimant suffered with a painful shoulder. On one occasion, she experienced shooting pains in her right arm and collapsed when someone brushed past her.


Click below for other cases in similar categories
Pain | DSE use: | SOC Major Group 4 | SIC Major Classification G

Amend or add to this case | Add a new case report

Last updated: 16/10/2009