Brazier v Dolphin Fairway Ltd 4.11.05

Employee fails to prove employer negligent in requiring him to lift pallets without a safe system of work.

Mr Brazier appealed to the Court of Appeal against an order that his claim for damages for alleged negligence by his employers, Dolphin Fairway Ltd ("Dolphin") be dismissed.

Mr Brazier had been employed as a machine operator, a job which included lifting pallets. He alleged that injury occurred because Dolphin had failed to provide him with a safe system of work. At first instance the Judge concluded that Mr Brazier had failed to prove that the system of work in force had given rise to a foreseeable risk of injury. The appeal was on the basis that the Judge had been wrong to reject his claim for want of proof, as he should have been prepared to infer that in the circumstances there was a claim in negligence that remained unrebutted.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that the trial Judge dealt with the case as argued and concluded that negligence had not been shown. He had then considered whether or not the circumstances gave rise to an inference of negligence and concluded they did not.
• The Judge was right to conclude that in the kind of circumstances that gave rise to an inference of negligence, the onus was on the Claimant to prove negligence on the balance of probabilities and Mr Brazier had failed to do so.

Comment

At a time when claimants are winning so many cases simply by proving that they had sustained an accident, this case is a timely reminder by the Court of Appeal that the onus remains on the claimant to prove his case.

When alleging negligence, a claimant must prove a breach of duty on the balance of probabilities and not simply rely on the fact that he or she sustained an injury at work during the course of employment as sufficient to establish an unsafe system of work.