Firm liable under PUWER for landlord's lift

Prosecutions and Claims |
15.11.2006

Tenant businesses are being warned to stretch their workplace risk assessments to cover shared facilties provided by landlords following a successful damages claim by an employee against her employer for a lift injury in the common part of a multi-occupancy building. The court classed the lift as work equipment provided by the employer under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER).

Precious Read was employed as a receptionist by PRP Architects at its office in the City of London, where the practice leased space on the second floor of a multi-tenanted building. As she left work on 20 November 2000, Reid's hand was caught in the lift doors when a safety sensor failed, injuring her wrist and thumb. The lift was the responsibility of the building's landlord, but Reid lodged a personal injury claim against her employer.

The judge found that the lift, for which PRP paid a maintenance charge to the landlord, fitted the definition of work equipment provided for employees under Section 2 of PUWER: "Any machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work (whether exclusively or not".

The court also held that Reid was still "at work" for the purposes of the Regulations when using the lift to leave at the end of the day. As a result, the company was in breach of Regulation 5(1) of PUWER, which requires employers to maintain work equipment so as to ensure employee safety. The company failed to have the judgement overturned on appeal.

Personal injury specialist Jon Cooper of lawyers Bond Pierce told HSW the case was a "stark reminder" of the need for businesses sharing buildings to assess the safety of equipment in common areas such as lift lobbies and car parks. "We now have work equipment ranging from a  bicycle to this, a lift in shared premises," said Cooper. "In PUWER there is no concept of reasonable practicability and the judges are interpreting that in a very wide way," he added.