Cleaner who was burned by falling bucket of boiling water wins damages after judge rules employers were 80 per cent to blame

A cleaner in a bank who was badly burned when a bucket of boiling water fell from a worktop and splashed over her legs has been awarded damages from her employers.

A judge in the Court of Session ruled that the defenders were liable because the sink taps provided did not work and the “obvious” alternative was for the pursuer to use an “inherently risky” boiler, but also held that there was “a degree of contributory negligence”.

Lady Scott said: “If the defenders had not wanted the boiler to be used they should have given instructions or put up a sign to that effect. If the defenders intended the use of the boiler, they should have taken steps to guard against the risk of the bucket containing hot water from falling or splashing.”

The court heard that the purser Susan McLellan was employed as a cleaner by the the defenders Mite Group plc at the Bank of Scotland at Garrowhill in Baillieston, Glasgow.

She had originally undertaken cleaning at a different bank in Cambuslang but arranged a swap with her nephew, who was also employed by the defenders as a cleaner at the bank in Baillieston - an arrangement which was approved by their supervisor.

The court was told that the cleaning equipment was kept in a small cupboard, which had a sink with taps on the wall opposite the entrance.

When she began working in the branch the pursuer discovered the taps did not work and never worked, so in order to obtain hot water for her mop bucket she used a water boiler, which was located on the wall above but to the right of the sink.

In order to fill and refill the bucket she would place the bucket underneath the boiler with the base resting on the right hand side of the sink and on a small flat surface between the sink and the wall of the cupboard.

However, on 11 Decemeber 2012 - having worked in the branch for six to eight weeks - she was injured when a bucket of extremely hot water fell and splashed her.

She “jammed” the bucket under the boiler but while it filled up it “overbalanced” and fell, causing her to suffer skin loss and burns on the back of both her legs.

The pursuer raised an action for damages and solatium was agreed at the sum of £12,000, but the issue at proof was causation.

The pursuer submitted there had been “no proper system” put in place to maintain the sink taps in working order and to ensure a safe supply of hot water required to carry out the cleaning job.

As a result of the problem with the taps the pursuer had to find another supply, and the “obvious alternative” was to use the boiler, but even if the defenders did not know of the faulty taps then they failed in their duties in failing to provide a proper system of maintenance.

It was also submitted that use of the boiler entailed working at height in a confined space with boiling water, which involved “unnecessary risk of injury” of the kind the pursuer suffered.

These failures were in breach of the defenders common law duty of care to maintain and enforce a safe system of working and in breach of Regulation 10(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Regulation 20 of theProvision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, it was argued.

The defenders submitted that the accident was “entirely the fault” of the pursuer, in placing the bucket containing boiling water underneath the boiler and leaving it there, when a “safe and obvious alternative” was to place the bucket in the sink where it could not have become unbalanced.

But the judge was not persuaded by the defenders that responsibility for the falling bucket was as simple as was suggested.

In a written opinion, Lady Scott said: “Certainly it might have been safer to place the bucket in the sink – but this too, I consider, was inherently risky. Moving a bucket containing boiling water about, at height, in a confined space was likely to result in an accident and the pursuer weighed this up.

“The pursuer needed hot water to carry out her job. The sink taps provided did not work. But for that failure the pursuer would not have used the boiler and would not have been placed in the position where she had to place or secure the bucket during the re-fill process.

“My conclusion from the evidence is that where hot water supply from the taps was inadequate, the use of the boiler was expected by the defenders and was in any event the obvious step to take. The risks inherent to the use of the boiler were clearly foreseeable and extend to consideration of the careless cleaner under pressure to complete her tasks within the hour.

“Accordingly I am satisfied that the liability of the defenders is established, both at common law and in relation to the statutory case in respect of the various regulations relied upon by the pursuer.”

However, the judge also held that in the circumstances of the cause of the accident there was “a degree of contributory negligence”.

The pursuer had failed to wedge the bucket securely and the defenders submitted that given the safe option of placing the bucket in the sink, the contributory negligence was “very high” and should be assessed at 90 per cent.

Lady Scott added: “As I have indicated, the use of the boiler was an obvious step to take and probably one intended by the defenders. Placing the bucket, where she did, was not surprising in the circumstances. I assess the degree of contributory negligence on the part of the pursuer at 20 per cent.”