Mechanic ignites flame near explosive liquid. Employer liable for personal injury.

Breda District Court 4 January 2012

The mechanic was working for Profile Tyre Center (PTC), a company whose activities include repairing and fitting tyres and rims on large moving (industrial) equipment. One day he was checking the tyres of a 'loader'. This is a large tractor with a shovel at the front and an excavator unit at the back. Of this vehicle, all four tyres were flat. The mechanic inflated three of the tyres using a compressor. For the last rear tyre, the compressor failed to connect the tyre to the rim. After several unsuccessful attempts, the mechanic used another method, spraying brake cleaner into the space between the tyre and the rim and igniting it with a lighter. The resulting explosion caused the tyre to pop back onto the rim. However, in the process, the mechanic's right index finger became trapped between the tyre and the rim, causing serious injuries to his finger.

The mechanic holds PTC liable. According to the mechanic, PTC failed to warn him about the dangers of this working method with the brake cleaner and failed to prohibit him from using the method, even though PTC was familiar with (the use of) this dangerous method.

PTC disputes that it is liable for the accident. It argues that it has instructed its employees to inflate tyres with a compressor. If this fails, employees should dismantle the tyre and take it to the workshop. According to PTC, the mechanic deviated from this practice on his own initiative by using the brake cleaner method. PTC points out that it is a fact of common knowledge that when a lighter is held near a highly flammable spray, an explosion occurs. Therefore, PTC considers that it cannot be required to have warned the mechanic of this obvious and generally known danger.

The Breda District Court ruled that PTC knew or should have known that the method with the brake cleaner was used in its sector and/or by its employees. The fact that there are foreseeable risks associated with the brake cleaner method does not mean that PTC was not obliged to explicitly warn about it and even prohibit this method. PTC should have explicitly warned its employees of the risks, prohibited this method and ensured that this prohibition was actually observed. Having failed to do so, PTC failed to fulfil its duty of care for the safety of the mechanic and is liable for the personal injury suffered by the mechanic as a result of the accident.

Tip 1: This judgment confirms the far-reaching responsibilities of employers to ensure the safety of their employees. Warning of work methods with foreseeable risks may also be required. The employer must prohibit a dangerous working method and actively(!) enforce the prohibition. If the employer does not comply, he is liable for the resulting personal injury.

Tip 2: Follow us on twitter too: http://www.twitter.com/ArbeidsletselLy