Post Smith, where should the PUWER lines be drawn? asks Hugh Preston
Post Smith, where should the PUWER lines be drawn? asks Hugh Preston
Long ago employers were liable only for injuries that were both foreseeable and avoidable. Then came the Factories Acts and the introduction of strict liability for defective machinery at work, expanding again with the implementation of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2932), subsequently replaced by PUWER—the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306).
PUWER appeared to go a step further than its predecessors. Reg 3(2) makes it clear that the duties apply in respect of work equipment “provided for use or used ... at work” [emphasis added] thus opening the door to liability for work equipment that has not been “provided” by the employer at all, but has nevertheless been “used at work”.
The argument for claimants has been that these provisions are to be interpreted literally, and that a political decision has been taken to impose liability upon employers for defects
