Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc [2004] UKHL 31 (1 July 2004)

A driver suffered frostbite caused by a cumulative process of wearing employer-provided safety boots in cold conditions. The House of Lords held this was not 'caused by an accident' under industrial injuries regulations, reinforcing the distinction between a single 'event' and a gradual 'process'.

Facts

The claimant, Mr Fytche, was employed by Wincanton Logistics Plc as a delivery driver. His role required him to work in chilled and frozen environments, and he was obliged to wear steel-toecapped safety boots as part of his Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Over a two-day period in winter, while working in these cold conditions, he suffered an injury diagnosed as vasospastic phenomena, a form of frostbite, to his right foot. The injury was the result of a cumulative process of exposure to cold, rather than a single, identifiable incident.

Issues

The central legal issue was the interpretation of paragraph D1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985. This provision defines a prescribed disease as ‘inflammation, ulceration…or malign disease of the skin…due to the nature of the person’s occupation, by reason of…exposure to…physical…agents…not being…an accident‘.

The key question for the House of Lords was whether Mr Fytche’s injury, which developed progressively, was ’caused by an accident’. If it was an accident, it would be excluded from the prescribed diseases scheme and would have to be claimed for under the separate provisions for industrial accidents.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court held that the claimant’s injury was the result of a process, not an accident, and therefore was not excluded from the prescribed diseases regulations.

Lord Hoffmann

Giving the leading speech, Lord Hoffmann traced the history of the term ‘accident’ in industrial injuries legislation. He emphasised the long-standing distinction between an ‘accident’ as an event, and an injury resulting from a ‘process’. He stated that this distinction was fundamental to the structure of the industrial injuries compensation scheme, which has separate routes for accidents and prescribed diseases. He argued that the purpose of the exclusionary words ‘not being… an accident’ in paragraph D1 was to prevent an overlap between the two schemes.

Lord Hoffmann concluded that the claimant’s injury was caused by the process of being exposed to cold, not by a distinct event that could be classified as an accident. He reasoned:

What caused the injury was the process of being exposed to a low temperature. Although the ‘vasospastic phenomena’ may have been a sudden and unexpected event, that event was the injury itself and not the accident which caused it. The cause was the process of exposure to cold.

Lord Steyn

Lord Steyn agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, but on narrower grounds. He was critical of relying too heavily on the event/process distinction, suggesting that the injury could plausibly be described as an ‘accident’ in the ordinary sense of the word, using the classic definition of ‘an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event’. However, he resolved the case by focusing on the specific statutory context. He argued that the regulations for prescribed diseases were intended to cover conditions arising from occupational processes like this one, and interpreting the injury as an ‘accident’ would undermine the specific purpose of the prescribed diseases scheme.

In these circumstances it seems to me that the real question is how the words of the exclusion should fairly be interpreted in their particular statutory context… the specific provision relating to prescribed diseases of the skin must be given a sensible and workable construction which avoids the result that the general invariably negatives the specific.

Other Opinions

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, and Lord Carswell agreed with the reasoning of Lord Hoffmann.

Implications

The decision provides significant clarity on the boundary between an ‘accident’ and a ‘process’ for the purpose of industrial injuries claims. It confirms that injuries which result from cumulative exposure to a harmful agent over time, even if the final medical manifestation is sudden, are to be treated as resulting from a ‘process’. Such claims should therefore be made under the prescribed diseases scheme, provided the condition is listed. The judgment reinforces the dual-track nature of the UK’s industrial injuries compensation system and limits the scope of what can be considered a one-off ‘accident’ at work.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed.

Source: Fytche v. Wincanton Logistics Plc [2004] UKHL 31 (1 July 2004)