Originally published in TEDR Volume 17 Issue 2 (publication date not recorded).
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal from the decision of a Circuit Judge which upheld an appeal from the decision of the District Judge to refuse to permit the Respondent to rely on a supplementary expert report.
While the Applicant coach driver was employed by the Respondent coach company he underwent a left knee replacement procedure and had six months away absence from work to recuperate.
When he returned to work he was given a manual coach to drive, which meant that he had to operate the clutch with his left foot. That caused him pain and he gave up work.
Very shortly before the expiry of the limitation period he issued a claim against C in negligence and/or breach of duty alleging that C should not have required him to drive a manual coach and/or should have undertaken a risk assessment.
This full content of this article is available to TAE members.
Articles reflect the law and practice at the time of original publication, except where a dated update is shown. Subsequent developments may affect their relevance or accuracy. They are provided for general information and do not constitute legal or professional advice. Obtain appropriate advice on your particular circumstances. Full disclaimer.