Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd – Management of identified risks

Ms Goodwin worked as an insurance advisor for a firm of insurance brokers between April 2000 and June 2003. In May 2002, the firm introduced a bonus scheme, which meant that the amount of typing carried out by Ms Goodwin increased from the amount she would ordinarily do. During the summer of 2002, Ms Goodwin noticed a pain in her wrist and informed her line manager. She took annual leave and the pain subsided, but on returning to work, the pain returned. Ms Goodwin was then signed off work for two weeks and was diagnosed by her GP as having tenosynovitis. After returning to work her workload was reduced but in early 2003, Ms Goodwin’s symptoms returned, and in the end she accepted her employer’s offer of voluntary redundancy.

Ms Goodwin continued to suffer pain in her wrists for some time after her employment ceased and consequently claimed for personal injury against her employer. Her claim was based on the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (the “Display Screen Regulations”), and she alleged that her employer had failed to take reasonable care to protect her from suffering wrist injury.

Ms Goodwin’s claim was dismissed at the first instance on grounds that whilst the employer had been in breach of Regulations 2, 6 and 7 of the Display Screen Regulations, those breaches were not causative of injury to Ms Goodwin. The company was not found to be negligent, as the increase in typing created by the bonus scheme was not significant and certainly not something that would cause a reasonable employer to foresee any risk of personal injury.

Ms Goodwin appealed on the grounds that the judge had erred in finding that (i) her injury had not been caused by her work; (ii) the employer had not been in breach under Regulation 4 of the Display Screen Regulations; (iii) the employer had not been negligent; and (iv) had the employer complied with its duties, it would not have acted differently towards her, and even if it had, such changes would not have made a difference.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the judge found the following:

• firstly, the amount of typing that the employee had undertaken between June 2002 and June 2003 was not excessive and would not normally cause personal injury, however taking all of the circumstances into account, it ought to have been held that on the balance of probabilities that the pain suffered by the claimant was aggravated by her keyboard work;
• from the evidence it was clear that the employer had not complied with Regulation 4, nor was he aware of the Regulations. The employer had failed to plan adjusted provisions for the employee and had therefore breached Regulation 4. However, the breach had no causative effect, for even had a plan been created, the employee’s existing routine would probably have remained unchanged;
• the employer was not negligent until the employee returned to work and it became apparent that even moderate typing aggravated the employee’s symptoms. As such, it was foreseeable that continuing with such work could lead to personal injury. Therefore the employer was liable for the reoccurrence of the employee’s symptoms, and its breach of duty continued until the employee’s employment was terminated;
• the determination at first instance that Regulation 2 had not been breached was upheld. The fact that the employer had never complied with Regulations 6 and 7, i.e. training on how to use work station without incurring injury, would not have stopped the occurrence of the original injury. However, on the employees return to work, had Regulations 6 and 7 been complied with, it would have become clear that her keyboard work needed to be further reduced. Therefore the employer’s breach of Regulations 6 and 7 caused the reoccurrence of the employee’s symptoms in early 2003.

This case highlights the importance of ensuring employers are aware of the relevant regulations, and certainly once a problem has been highlighted, exercising diligence in following up the progress of the employee.