Get Set Training LTD
Get Set Training LTD
Get Set Training LTD

Manual Handling Case Studies

The manual handling case studies below are from no-win-no-fee solicitors web sites, names and employers involved have been removed.

      Lifting injury due to inadequate manual handling training

A Sheffield woman received 4000 in compensation after a soft tissue injury to her neck. This was caused by the lifting of clinical waste bags in her job. She received no specific training for this work, was never told not to carry waste bags over a certain weight and was not informed there was a trolley to aid her with the task.

      Refresher training

Name -v- National parcel delivery firm. - A failure to have a worker on a refresher course for manual handling put the employers in breach of 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulations. The claim for compensation for injuries sustained was therefore upheld and the amount of 6650 in damages awarded together with interest to the pursuer.

      Employer not provide with proper equipment

Employed at a marble cutting works, the claimant was not provided with proper manual handling equipment with which to transport pieces of marble to the cutting bed. As a result of this he had to push the pieces of marble from a lower level up on to the cutting bed and whilst he was doing so he sustained a disc protrusion for which he had surgery. The claimant was able to return to work and subsequently settled his case for 20,000 in compensation.

      Manual handling injury caused by lack of equipment

A man received 20,000 compensation after a manual handling injury caused by lifting heavy bags without the aid of a tail-lift. As a result of this, Mr X had to change his job to one involving only light duties as he could not be involved in any lifting activities.

      Foreseeability of risk

Name -v- A Scottish council - A worker injured himself whilst trying to return a 3 piece ladder weight 50kg to his van. It got stuck in grass causing him to lose his balance. A man lifting a ladder this way involved a foreseeable possibility of injury. This case called for Debate on the Defender's Motion to dismiss the action prior to any court hearing on evidence. It was disputed by the Defenders that the incident in question came under the terms of the Manual Handling Regulations and that there was foreseeability of risk. The Judgment confirmed that the ladder was considered a load in terms of Reg.2(1), and that a man lifting a ladder this way involved a foreseeable possibility of injury.

      Manual handling tasks

Name -v- Multi national distribution company - At Debate it was held that the operation of closing a lorry tailgate was, under the terms of the Regulations, capable of being a manual handling operation, on the basis that the Regulations were not designed merely to deal with the lifting of heavy loads, but were designed to cover a much wider range of hazards, including something secured by a hinge to another thing.

      Inadequate risk assessment

Name -v- Regional electrical testing firm. - The Defenders had carried out a risk assessment in relation to the work process involved, which later resulted in injury. The work involved the forming of a loop in a metal cable. The Pursuer had general instructions when starting work but none on this operation, and had not been shown the risk assessment. A case was successful under the Manual Handling Regulations. It was deemed in this case that there was one process of pushing and pulling the wire, this operation could only be done manually so although there was no breach of 4(1)(a), there was a breach of 4(1)(b) because the risk assessment was neither suitable nor sufficient and no steps were taken to prevent or reduce the risk of personal injury.