Fraser v Winchester Health Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1999 |
| Date | 05 July 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Mantell and Lord Justice Mance
Negligence - liability for injury to employee - contributory negligence
A health authority requiring a young employee to work with inadequate equipment and no instruction as to its proper use was responsible for the injury caused to her when her misuse of the equipment resulted in an explosion and fire, even though she understood there was a danger in what she was doing and she could have guarded against it.
The Court of Appeal so held dismissing an appeal by Winchester Health Authority from the decision of Judge Rudd in Southampton County Court in September 1998 that it was liable in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty for injuries to the plaintiff, Nicola Rose Fraser.
On contributory negligence the court apportioned one-third blame on the plaintiff.
Mr Andrew Kennedy for the plaintiff; Mr Paul Cairns for the defendant health authority.
LORD JUSTICE MANTELL said that the plaintiff, aged 21, was a resident support worker at a home for mentally and physically disabled residents run by the defendant.
She was sent on a week's camping holiday with a patient without supervision or assistance. She had no training or instruction in the use of camping equipment.
She suffered burns to her face and hands when, needing to cook an evening meal for the patient, she changed the cylinder on a gas cooker at the entrance to the tent and near to a lit candle. There was an explosion and the tent caught fire.
The plaintiff agreed that she should have known better and was aware of the risk from a lit candle in the tent. But she claimed the defendant was at fault by supplying a lamp with no batteries, candles and matches and for failing to giver proper instructions to her as to how to change the gas cylinder.
Relying on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ratcliff v McConnellTLRWLR(The Times December 3, 1998; (1999) 1 WLR 670), the defendant said that the risk was so obvious that neither warning or instruction was needed: the plaintiff, it was argued, understood the risk from what she did and should have guarded against it.
The facts of Ratcliff were different. It was impossible to interfere with the judge's conclusion on primary liability.
A young, inexperienced support worker with the heavy responsibility for looking after her patient was provided with the bare minimum of equipment and no instruction.
To compound...
To continue reading
Request your trial