Ms Munro, an employee of Aberdeen City Council, was injured after slipping on ice in a car park, which was part of her workplace under the terms of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 SI 1992/3004.

Following her accident, Ms Munro claimed that the Council were liable to pay her compensation, as the regulations state: “The workplace … shall be maintained (including cleaned as appropriate) in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair”.

The Council countered her claim by arguing that Ms Munro’s interpretation of that section of the regulations conflicted with a different part of the regulations, which states: “So far as is reasonably practicable, every floor in a workplace and the surface of every traffic route in a workplace shall be kept free from obstructions and from any article or substance which may cause a person to slip, trip or fall.”

The Council contended that if the provision which Ms Munro was relying on was meant to be interpreted as literally as she was doing, then there would have been no point in the later “So far as is reasonably practicable” proviso.

If Ms Munro won her case, it was agreed that an appropriate figure for damages would be £150,000. However, the Court of Session favoured the Council’s interpretation of the regulations, and Ms Munro failed in her claim.

While reaching this conclusion, Lord Malcolm quoted the judgement of Lord Emslie in McEwan v Lothian Buses, who said: “If the absolute duty prescribed under regulation 5 were to be given the wholly unrestricted meaning which the pursuer contended, then in my view many of the other regulations would become otiose, and the qualification of reasonable practicality in particular defined situations … might as well not be there at all.”

Technorati Tags: Accident Compensation, Employee Injury Claim, Employer Liability