In workplace negligence claims alleging failure to provide a safe system of work, proving that an alternative system would have reduced the risk of injury is distinct from, and insufficient to establish, factual causation. Where the alternative system still involves physical exertion and the plaintiff has a pre-existing condition, common sense alone cannot bridge the gap between risk reduction and injury avoidance — medical or ergonomic evidence is required to establish that the counterfactual system would have prevented the specific injury. The distinction between risk reduction and causation is critical: a plaintiff who establishes a reasonably practicable alternative that would reduce risk has not thereby established that the alternative would have averted the injury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.