Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP

Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP involved a home carer who slipped and fell on ice while on her way to visit a client. She sued her employer for breach of statutory duties under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as well as for common law negligence. The Court of Session found the employer liable under all three heads of claim. The Inner House reversed the decision, holding that the employer was not liable under the Regulations and that the expert evidence on which the Court of Session relied was inadmissible. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the home carer, holding that the expert evidence was properly admitted and that the employer breached the statutory duties under the Regulations and common law. The Supreme Court first addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in health and safety matters, finding that such evidence could be admitted if it would assist the court, the expert had the relevant knowledge and experience, the expert was impartial, and there was a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin the expert’s evidence. The Supreme Court held that the expert in this case had the necessary knowledge and experience to give evidence on health and safety practice and that his evidence was relevant and admissible. The Supreme Court then turned to the substantive legal issues, beginning with the Framework Directive and the PPE Directive. It held that the employer was required to provide suitable personal protective equipment to its employees where the risks to which they were exposed could not be avoided or sufficiently limited by other means. The Supreme Court found that the employer had failed to provide suitable personal protective equipment in this case, as it had failed to provide anti-slip attachments which were available and effective in reducing the risk of slipping. The Supreme Court also held that the employer was liable under the common law for failing to take reasonable care for the safety of its employees. It found that the employer should have taken steps to reduce the risk of its employees slipping and falling on snow and ice, including by providing anti-slip attachments. The Supreme Court concluded that the employer’s breach of duty caused or materially contributed to the home carer’s accident.