The High Court found the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) liable for the worsening of a cable jointer’s elbow injuries after February 1993, ruling that a compression tool he was required to use was unsuitable for his work. Mr Justice Quirke awarded him €45,000 in general damages.
The plaintiff, an electrician employed by the ESB, used a Pfisterer compression tool to crimp electrical connectors. The work involved repeated forceful squeezing. He developed pain in both elbows, was treated over several years and was placed on light duties in September 1996 after his GP advised the ESB that his condition was work-related and likely to recur if he returned to the same work.
The court rejected the claim that the ESB had breached its common-law duty of care. It said the employer could not reasonably have foreseen the risk before it was notified of the possible connection between the work and the injury. Evidence that the tool was widely used without reported similar injuries was not challenged. The court also noted that the medical evidence on the cause of the plaintiff’s condition was conflicting.
The judge found the ESB had breached statutory duties to prepare a safety statement and a written workplace risk assessment. But the plaintiff had not shown that either failure caused or contributed to his injury: the evidence did not establish that an assessment would have identified the risk. The court also found insufficient evidence that specific training on posture or stance would have prevented the injury.
The claim succeeded under Regulation 19 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 1993. The court found that the tool caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s bilateral epicondylitis and that hydraulic and battery-powered alternatives were available between February 1993 and September 1996. It held the ESB had breached its duty to ensure the equipment was suitable and could be used without risk to the plaintiff’s health and safety.
The damages award did not cover symptoms before February 1993, when the court found the condition had already begun. It covered the substantial worsening between February 1993 and September 1996, including pain, treatment and a period when the plaintiff could not work, as well as later effects. The judge said the plaintiff’s future life should not be appreciably altered if he took care, though vigorous manual activity might be slightly restricted.