The importance of training

Pennington v Surrey County Council; Surrey Fire & Rescue Service [2006] EWCA Civ 1493

Counsel: For the appellant: L Johnson For the respondents: K Awadalla Solicitors: For the appellant:Weightmans For the respondents: George Ide Phillips

S, a local authority, and a fire and rescue service, appealed against the decision of a trial judge that they were liable in damages for injuries suffered by P, the respondent fireman for their breach of statutory duty under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 reg.4. P had suffered an injury when his finger had been caught in the moving part of a Holmatro 1040 power ram. He had been using the ram to straighten a lorry cab which had buckled in a road accident, trapping the driver. P had arrived at a crucial stage in the rescue process, and had taken over the rescue from another fire service which had decided to use that particular type of ram, with which P was not familiar. He had normally used a 1020 ram, which was considerably lighter. P’s case was that his hand had slipped and he had been unable to see the pinch point. The trial judge had found that the 1040 ram was unsuitable within the meaning of reg.4. He had also given consideration to certain matters relevant to reg.11 of the Regulations, and to common law negligence. However, despite being critical of the lack of specific training in the use of the 1040 ram, he had not made specific findings on those matters. P had argued at the trial that there had been a failure to provide him with adequate training in the use of the 1040 ram, while S had contended that they had done everything reasonably practicable to ensure P’s safety and to secure a safe work environment for employees.