Employers have a duty to protect and safeguard all of its employees by providing staff with personal protective equipment (PPE) which may be necessary. For those of us working in an office environment this may not be relevant however people working on building sites or with dangerous chemicals then PPE is very important in preventing injury or reducing the risk of harm.
If an employer fails to comply with this basic health & safety requirement then they will be liable for any breach that results in a personal injury to an employee or for that matter any other person.
By law all employers must follow guidelines in accordance with the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. PPE is defined in the Regulations as ‘all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health or safety’. This includes – safety helmets, gloves, eye protection, high-visibility clothing, safety footwear and safety harnesses. Hearing protection and respiratory protective equipment provided for most work situations are not covered by these Regulations because other regulations apply to them. However these items need to be compatible with any other PPE provided.
Cycle helmets or crash helmets worn by employees on the roads are not covered by the Regulations. Motorcycle helmets are legally required for motorcyclists under road traffic legislation.
The main requirement is that personal protective equipment is to be supplied and used at work wherever there are risks to health and safety that cannot be adequately controlled in other ways.
The Regulations require that PPE:
· is properly assessed before use to ensure it is suitable;
· is maintained and stored properly;
· is provided with instructions on how to use it safely; and
· is used correctly by employees.
For example, Mr Jones working in a factory with dangerous chemicals was supplied with protective footwear however this footwear was in the poor state of repair as there was a small tear in one of his boots. Mr Jones sustained injury when a chemical leaked through the tear in his boot causing a severe burn to his skin. Mr Jones instructed Bartletts Solicitors who, following investigation, discovered that his employers had checked his boots and noted the tear a few weeks before the accident however they had failed to replace them. Bartletts Solicitors thereafter secured an admission of liability from Mr Jones’ employers enabling him to be compensated for his injury.
Recent Case Studies
Second Degree Burns Due To Lack Of A Protective Apron
Decorator Injured Due To Defective Ladder
