This litigation arose out of an incident which occurred in the Defendant’s yard on the 8th October 2009. The Plaintiff was a lorry driver who had been employed by the Defendant for around 18 years and as a lorry driver for 10 years. He claimed that he was not provided with gloves. He said that as a result of the lack of gloves and the sharp edge on the kitchen worktop, which he was loading onto the back of a lorry, he was caused an injury to his finger.
His account was denied by the Defendant company. During cross-examination the Plaintiff conceded that he may have had gloves but could not remember. Judge Wells interrupted him and indicated that he believed that the Plaintiff did have gloves but had decided not to wear them.
An application was made by Counsel for the Defendant, at the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s evidence that the Plaintiff had not, on the balance of probability, proved his case. The Judge deliberated long and hard over this point. He said in summing up that he thought that the Plaintiff had gloves and had chosen not to put them on. There was nothing stopping him putting them on. In fact he went on to say that every ounce of his training said that he should have worn gloves. It had not been pleaded that there was a sharp edge on the formica kitchen top, which was being loaded. He would have known that it was not wrapped in cardboard or protective polythene.
The Judge continued that there was no evidence to show that the Plaintiff had been disciplined previously in relation to his habit of not wearing gloves. Notwithstanding this the Judge said that he had a pretty hapless approach to his own safety and in fact was selective in his regard to his safety. He knew that gloves were available and supplied and he knew he should have worn them. The Judge felt that too many people were too quick to “BSE” – blame someone else. The Plaintiff had given evidence that his finger had been sliced and the Judge remarked on this, as this was clearly not the case and said that the Plaintiff was selective in the way he had given his evidence and in fact what he had sustained was a minor superficial cut. Any injury to one’s hand would have been moderated by the glove.
He concluded by dismissing the Plaintiff’s case on a direction and awarding costs in favour of the Defendant.