The High Court found that BCA Automotive Ltd did not breach its duty to take reasonable care for a car transporter driver who fell from a deck in January 2020, in a claim affecting workers and employers in work-at-height roles.
Key facts
- Who: Dean Ward, a car transporter driver, and his employer BCA Automotive Ltd; the judgment is relevant to workplace injury claims involving risk assessments and training.
- From: Judgment of 6 February 2026
- Source: Dean Ward & Anor v BCA Automotive Ltd [2026] EWHC 204 (KB)
In Dean Ward & Anor v BCA Automotive Ltd [2026] EWHC 204 (KB), HHJ Siddique, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the King's Bench Division, gave judgment on 6 February 2026 after a trial on 26, 27 and 28 November 2025.
Background
Dean Ward worked as a car transporter driver for BCA Automotive Ltd. On 24 January 2020 he released the straps securing a vehicle on deck 8 of an Odyssey car transporter operated by a colleague. As he dismounted, he stepped backwards, slipped and fell, suffering a compound articular fracture of his right elbow. The second claimant's claim had settled, so the trial concerned only Mr Ward's claim.
The question
Mr Ward argued that the Odyssey's restricted deck space had not been properly risk assessed and that his training was inadequate. He said this left him unable to keep three points of contact, as his training required, and that he had to let go of a wheel hoop when dismounting. BCA accepted it owed a duty of reasonable care but denied breach. It said the dismounting system was reasonably safe, that he was trained, and that the accident happened because he did not follow that training.
The decision
The judge was not persuaded that Mr Ward had established that BCA breached its duty to take reasonable care for his health and safety.
The reasoning
The judge found a risk assessment ought to have been carried out when the Odyssey was introduced to the fleet. But a risk assessment was in place before the accident, identified dismounting as a risk, and provided for training on dismounting with three points of contact. Mr Ward had completed that training, and his own witness statement said mounting and dismounting on the Odyssey was no different from the vehicles he was used to.
Mr Ward said he could not keep three points of contact. The judge did not find that evidence reliable. Three other witnesses, all shorter than him, said they could keep three points of contact using the same method, and one supported this with photographs and video. Mr Ward's counsel accepted in closing that it may have been possible for him to step down without letting go of the hoop. Drivers also described other ways of dismounting that kept three points of contact.
The judge found BCA's safe system of work was consistent with industry standards, including the Vehicle Logistics Safe Loading Code of Practice 2022, which also emphasises secure footing and a minimum of three points of contact. No evidence was brought to the judge's attention showing that the principle was "clearly bad".
What this means for injured workers and employers
The ruling shows that an employer may fall short in one respect, such as not carrying out a risk assessment when new equipment is introduced, and still not be found in breach where the judge was satisfied that suitable measures were in place. The court also weighed how far a worker's own account was supported by other evidence.
Sources
- Dean Ward & Anor v BCA Automotive Ltd [2026] EWHC 204 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 6 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/204