Our client was employed as a warehouse operative and her duties included sorting large bags of mail. The mail arrived on large containers and our client was required to climb on the container, move the bags towards the front where a colleague would move them, and then get down from the container. No steps were provided and the gap between the container and floor was roughly the same as the height from the floor to our client’s knees. As there were no steps provided, our client had to find a way down from the containers.
On the day of her accident, our client stepped forward from a container, putting her weight on one leg, intending to bring her other leg down when she twisted her ankle, spraining it. She attended the local hospital after the accident where it was confirmed she’d sprained her ankle and damaged her tendons and ligaments. The accident was the employer’s fault because they were in breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005; the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992; the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 in that they:-
- Failed to provide our client with appropriate or adequate equipment, such as steps so she could get on and off the containers safely;
- Caused, permitted, required or suffered the continuance of a system of work when it was unsafe and unsuitable to do so;
- Failed to ensure that the sorting of mailbags from the containers was properly planned and/or appropriately supervised and/or carried out in a manner that was safe;
- Failed to undertake any risk assessment of the work being undertaken by our client;
- Failed to prevent our client from falling/stepping from a distance liable to cause her injury;
- Failed to train or instruct our client as to how or how safely to undertake her work or otherwise to supervise her to see that she undertook it safely;
- Caused, permitted, required or suffered our client to work when it was unsafe to do so;
- Failed to warn our client of the dangers of working according to an unsafe system or otherwise to prevent her from doing so;
- Failed to provide or maintain for our client safe or adequate plant or equipment;
- Failed to take any or any adequate care for the safety of our client;
- Exposed our client to a danger or a trap or a foreseeable risk of injury.
Lawson-West began a personal injury claim and recovered accident compensation of £2100 for our client’s injuries. Our client was expected to have recovered fully within 15 months of the accident date.
Categories: Accident at Work
Tagged: Accident at Work, ankle injury, employers' liability, fall at work
Our client was employed as a school cook and received a delivery of cartons of juice wrapped in cling film and delivered in pre-packed cages. Our client was unwrapping the cling film and taking cartons into stock from the cage. As she lifted a 12 pack of 1 litre orange juice cartons from the cage, suddenly a 2.6 kg tin of solid pack apples fell from underneath the orange juice onto our client’s foot.
Our client attended the local hospital after the accident where it was found she suffered a fractured toe and severe bruising. The accident was reported to the organisation who supplied the badly stacked cage, witnessed by two of our client’s colleagues.
Lawson-West began an accident compensation claim as the accident was the fault of the organisation supplying the pre-packed cages because they:-
- failed to take reasonable, suitable and effective measures to prevent our client being struck by a falling object likely to cause personal injury;
- failed to ensure that all employees who are responsible for packing the cages have received adequate training for purposes of health and safety;
- failed to ensure that the employee(s) who packed the cage made full and proper use of any system of work provided for their use by the employer;
- caused or permitted the cage to be packed incorrectly and to be a danger to our client when they knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe to do so;
- failed to have a system in place whereby the cage was inspected to ensure that it was packed correctly and safely;
- failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment;
- exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury;
Lawson-West recovered compensation for our client’s injuries and further compensation for loss of earnings as our client was unable to work whilst her injuries healed.
Categories: Accident at Work
Tagged: Accident at Work, employers' liability
Our client was driving her car towards a junction but was still some distance from it when another car turned into the road, but took the corner too wide. This meant the oncoming car was on the wrong side of the road. Our client braked, but could not avoid the collision.
The collision triggered our client’s airbag to inflate, so she was knocked unconscious and sustained whiplash injuries to her neck, shoulders and back as well as facial injuries and bruising to her arm and leg. Lawson-West began a personal injury claim. The road traffic accident was the other driver’s fault because she:-
- took the corner too wide;
- drove her car on the wrong side of the road;
- drove too fast;
- failed to keep a proper look out;
- failed to stop, slow down or steer her car to avoid the accident;
- failed to notice our client’s car;
- was in breach of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Highway Code.
The claim settled on a 50/50 basis as there were no independent witnesses and both drivers claimed the other was on the wrong side of the road.
Lawson-West solicitors recovered just over £1400 in compensation for our client’s whiplash injuries and expenses incurred as a result of the accident.
Categories: Road traffic accident
Tagged: car accident, Road traffic accident, Whiplash injury
Our client was shopping in a supermarket. An employee had been stocking the shelves, and flattening the boxes as they were emptied of stock. However, instead of using the trolley he had been provided with to store the flattened boxes, the employee left them on the floor in an aisle. As our client walked along the aisle, he slipped on the boxes, falling heavily on his left side.
Our client was attended by a supermarket first aider and the accident was recorded in the supermarket’s accident book. An x-ray confirmed our client’s hip was not broken but he had sustained severe bruising to his arm and hip as well as a sprained wrist.
The supermarket did write to our client expressing regret for his accident and hope that their first aider had looked after him.
Our client had to rely on family help and had to use taxis for transport as he could not drive whilst his injuries healed. His injuries made it difficult for him to complete tasks around the house and garden which caused concern as he is also sole carer for his wife who has disabilities.
The supermarket admitted liability and Lawson-West were able to negotiate compensation of £3000 for our client’s injuries and expenses incurred as a result of the accident.
Categories: Accident in supermarket
Tagged: Accident Compensation, supermarket accident;occupiers' liability
Our client was employed as a machine operator but was on occasion required to act as production manager. He was told by another employee that one of the machines kept stopping. The machine was a single-wrap machine used to wrap industrial kitchen towels in film. Our client was required to see if he could resolve the problem before calling an engineer, even though our client had no specific experience of this particular machine.
As production was not going through, our client tried to “jog” the item through with the machine guard on. This failed to get the machine operating again. Our client then opened the right side guard and put his hand on the roll that was inside the machine to try to pull the item through manually whilst jogging it. Our client had not been given any training on this specific machine, so was relying on previous experience with similar machines which suggested that the blade would not operate with the guard open. Suddenly a blade came down, moved back a short way and then quickly came down two to three times. This caught our client completely by surprise.
After the accident, our client attended the local hospital. The cuts he had sustained required a total of 18 stitches, which left him with limited use of his hand whilst the stitching healed.
The accident was reported, recorded in the accident book and an investigation carried out. Lawson-West began an accident compensation claim as the accident with the blade on the machine was the employer’s fault because they:-
- Negligently, or in breach of regulation 8 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1988 (the Regulations) failed to provide our client with written instructions relating to the use of the work equipment and in particular, did not post a warning notice until after the accident (in breach of Regulation 24(1));
- Failed to maintain the machine in an efficient state, working order and in good repair in breach of Regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1988;
- In breach of Regulation 7 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1988, failed to ensure that the maintenance of the machine was undertaken alone by people qualified to do so;
- In breach of Regulation 9(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1988, failed to ensure that our client had received adequate training for the purposes of Health and Safety;
- In breach of Regulation 12(1) (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1988, failed to protect our client by the machine being permitted to operate when the guard was not in place;
- Failing to institute or enforce any or any adequate system of inspection or maintenance of the machine whereby the fault that has been referred to might have been detected and the same remedied before our client’s accident;
- Failed to ensure the machine was maintained or repaired by competent engineers;
- Failed to warn our client that the machine still ran when the guard was removed;
- Failed to provide our client with a safe system of work;
- Failed to provide our client with safe plant or equipment;
- Failed to discharge their common duty of care towards our client;
- Exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.
After investigation into the accident, the employer posted two warning notices stating “under no circumstances are you to place your hands between the sealing bar.”
As a result of our client’s injuries following the accident, he was unable to write for very long because holding a pen was difficult and painful. He also had to take four weeks off work whilst his injuries healed. Lawson-West recovered accident compensation of £2200.
Related Articles
Lack of training resulted in accident causing fractured wrist
Poor Maintenance of Door Shutter led to crush injury to wrist and hand
Jammed lever on work equipment led to hand injury
Categories: Accident at Work
Tagged: Accident at Work, employers' liability, maintenance of work equipment
Our client was employed as a sales assistant in a shoe shop and went upstairs to the stock room to fetch a pair of shoes for a customer. She also took some boxes of shoes back up to the stock room to keep the floor of the shop clear. As she climbed the stairs, she slipped on the last but one step at the top of the flight of stairs, causing her to fall forwards and her right leg slipped violently to the side. She felt pain to her knee and attended the local hospital after the accident.
The stairs to the stock room were concrete with no anti-slip material. On inspection, it was discovered our client had slipped on a liquid which had spilt on the stairs. Lawson-West solicitors obtained pictures showing marks on the steps where previously spilt drinks had dried out as they had not been cleared up. This showed that there was no system of clearing spillages enforced in the shop and our client’s slipping accident was her employer’s fault as they:-
- contrary to the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992, failed to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that every floor in the workplace and the surface of every traffic route in a workplace was kept free from any substance which may cause a person to slip and fall;
- contrary to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work;
- caused or permitted the step to be or to become or to remain a danger and a trap;
- caused or permitted the liquid to be present upon the step;
- failed to cause the liquid to be cleaned up and the step to be dried;
- failed to institute or enforce any or any adequate system for the inspection and cleaning of the steps;
- failed to place any barrier or warning signs around the wet floor;
- failed to provide our client with a safe place of work;
- exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.
As a result of the accident our client dislocated her right leg so had to undergo an athroscopy, intensive physiotherapy and have an operation. Lawson-West recovered compensation of £2000 in respect of our client’s injury and expenses incurred as a result of the accident, including a small amount for loss of earnings as our client is a student and was employed part-time.
Categories: Accident at Work
Tagged: Accident at Work, employers' liability, Slip at work, spillage at work
Our client was employed as a driver and driving a van supplied by his employers. As our client climbed out of the cab, he put his foot on the step, which was part of the cab. The step gave way and our client fell to the floor, jarring and injuring both knees.
The accident was reported and recorded in the accident book. Our client attended hospital after the accident where he was found to have damaged knee cartilage which required an operation. Lawson-West began a personal injury claim because the accident was our client’s employer’s fault as they:-
- provided plant and equipment that was defective and dangerous to the extent that if necessary our client will rely upon the provisions of Section 1 of the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969;
- failed to maintain the van in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair, contrary to regulations 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998;
- failed to inspect the van to ensure that it and more particularly, the step was safe to operate and/or use contrary to Regulations 6(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment regulations or at all;
- failed to take measures to ensure that exposure of our client to the risk of any part of the van, was prevented, contrary to Regulation 12(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations or at all;
- failed to provide or maintain for our client a safe system of work;
- failed to provide or maintain for our client, safe or adequate equipment;
- failed to take any or any adequate care for the safety of our client;
- exposed our client to a danger or a trap with a foreseeable risk of injury;
- failed to discharge the common duty of care to see that our client was safe in using the van contrary to Section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957;
- caused, permitted, required or suffered the step to remain defective;
- failed to warn our client of the defective step.
Lawson-West recovered compensation of £4000 in respect of our client’s injuries including loss of earnings as our client could not work until he had sufficiently recovered from his operation.
Related Articles
Knee Injury sustained after platform lowered without warning
Poor maintenance of door shutter led to crush injury to wrist and hand
Trip over wire led to elbow surgery
Categories: Accident at Work
Tagged: Accident at Work, employers' liability, knee injury, Occupiers' Liability, personal injury claim
Our client started his new job with a new employer as a driver. He had been told that someone would be working with him. But, when he reported for work, he discovered he would be working alone, despite not having had any training on the actual trailers he would be using. He delivered the first trailer successfully, drove to the next drop off point and reversed into the loading bay to pick up another trailer. Our client started to hook up the lines to the cab and needed to lift the support legs from the trailer, which was done by turning a handle. However, the handle was so stiff and solid, he jerked his wrist, injuring it.
He attended the local hospital where it was discovered that he had sustained a fractured wrist. Follow up treatment was done at a local fracture clinic. After the accident, he was advised that by lifting the suspension, the handle would have been easier to turn, but should have been told this beforehand.
Lawson-West began a personal injury claim to recover accident compensation from our client’s employers who were at fault because they:-
- contrary to the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, failed to ensure that the work equipment, including the trailer, was maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair;
- failed to ensure that work equipment exposed to conditions causing deterioration, which is liable to result in dangerous situations, is inspected at suitable intervals;
- failed to provide our client with adequate health and safety information and, where appropriate, written instructions;
- failed to ensure that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken;
- contrary to the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 failed to avoid the need for our client to undertake manual handling operations at work which involved the risk of him being injured or failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of all such manual handling operations;
- contrary to the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of our client to which he was exposed whilst he was at work;
- failed to prove our client with a safe place of work;
- exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.
Lawson-West recovered £5000 in accident compensation for our client’s injury including loss of earnings as our client could not work until the fracture had healed.
Related Articles
Knee injury sustained after platform lowered without warning
Weighbridge trip caused torn ligaments
Trip on Packaging Strap at work caused broken arm
Categories: Accident at Work
Tagged: Accident Compensation, employers' liability, personal injury claim, wrist injury
Our client is an experienced nurse and has to wear the theatre uniform provided by her employer. Previously there had been no problems with the uniforms, but our client began to develop red areas on both her legs. She reported this to the theatre management. The red areas continued to develop and our client made appointments to see her General Practitioner and Occupational Health, where she was diagnosed as suffering eczema on her legs.
As other staff also made similar complaints, a meeting was held where it was admitted that there had been a chemical problem in the laundry cycle with the chemical circulating pump which meant that there was not enough water circulated through the wash cycle to dilute the chemical detergent.
Lawson-West began a personal injury claim. The eczema was the fault of the laundry company engaged to clean the uniforms and they:-
- caused or permitted our client to be exposed to a chemical detergent which caused a reaction to her skin;
- failed to ensure that our client’s work uniform was clean and clear of chemical detergents;
- failed to ensure that the laundry equipment was maintained in a sufficient state, in sufficient working order and in good repair;
- failed to ensure that the pump was circulating enough water through the rinse cycle to avoid the chemicals used for the cleaning process being of a more concentrated solution;
- failed to fit an acidity or Ph monitor, which would have monitored the water coming out of the press tank and sounded an alarm and enabling the Ph levels to be monitored to ensure that they did not fall below the parameters;
- failed to inspect the work equipment at suitable intervals whereby the defect would have been rectified before our client’s accident;
- caused or permitted excess chemical detergent to remain on the theatre uniforms.
The laundry company admitted that the circulating pump was not working and had become blocked, which meant that excess chemical detergent was left on the theatre uniforms which our client had to wear and that triggered her eczema. Lawson-West recovered damages of £1144 for compensation for our client’s eczema.
Related Articles:-
Understaffed, busy kitchen led to burns accident for untrained kitchen assistant
Inadequate health and safety training led to employee suffering burns
Categories: Accident at Work
Tagged: eczema, employers' liability
