Failure to clear spill at work led to dislocated leg injuries

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.

Damaged knee cartilage caused by fall 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

Lack of training resulted in accident causing fractured wrist

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

Provided Work Uniform triggered eczema for which accident compensation was paid

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

Understaffed, busy kitchen led to burns accident for untrained kitchen assistant

Our client was working as a kitchen assistant, although had never received any training in the five years she had worked in this particular kitchen.  On the day of the accident the kitchen was understaffed and also open longer than usual as a Christmas dinner was being provided. 

Our client was in the process of draining boiling water from containers of cooked vegetables by using cloths provided to hold the hot metal trays.  Our client picked up a tray of carrots using the cloths in order to drain the water the carrots had been cooked in.  However, the cloth caught on the stand/support on the cooker, causing boiling water to spill over our client’s arm.  In pain, our client rushed to put her arm under a cold tap.

The accident was written up in the accident book and our client was asked if she would prefer a call to be made for an ambulance or her husband.  Our client asked if her husband could come and collect her.  He took her to the local hospital.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The accident which resulted in our client suffering burns was the employer’s fault because they:-

• failed under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992/1999 to carry out a suitable health and safety risk assessment;
• failed under Regulation 4(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 to ensure that the work equipment provided was fit for purpose, in this instance to enable our client to move hot containers of boiling water without risk of burns;
• failed under Regulation 4(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 to have regard for the working conditions and risks to health and safety of employees;
• failed under Regulation 8(1) and 8(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 to ensure our client was provided with adequate health and safety information and training for the tasks she had to carry out;
• failed under Regulation 12(1) and 12(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 to take measures to minimise the risks involved in moving hot containers of boiling water;
• failed to have an adequate system for moving of hot containers of boiling water in a safe manner and reducing the risk of injury;
• failed to organise the work to provide a safe working environment;
• failed to provide our client with a safe place of work;
• failed to provide our client with a safe system of work;
• failed to provide our client with safe equipment to carry out her tasks;
• failed to warn our client of the danger of which they knew or ought to have known;
• exposed our client to unreasonable risk of injury.

At the hospital our client was found to have sustained a severe burn to her dominant hand.  The dressing on the burn had to be redressed on a regular basis after the accident.  Lawson-West recovered accident compensation in respect of our client’s injuries and also the care she received whilst her burns were healing.

Knee Injury sustained after platform lowered without warning

Our client was employed as an HGV Driver and was on site to connect a trailer to an HGV which had been reversed onto a platform.  As our client was busy connecting the appropriate wires and checking they were properly connected, the platform lowered by 3 – 6 inches.  Our client was unaware that the platform had been lowered and no warning was given.  As our client went to walk off the platform, he tripped sustaining a knee injury.

Lawson-West solicitors began a personal injury claim.  The tripping accident was the site’s occupier’s fault as they were in breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and negligence in that they:-

• failed to discharge the common duty of care to see our client was reasonably safe in using the premises;
• exposed our client to a foreseeable risk of injury;
• caused, permitted or suffered our client to work in an area when it was not safe to do so;
• failed to take any care for the safety of our client;
• failed to provide or maintain a safe means of access or exit from a place in which our client had to work by failure to ensure the platform would not drop or would not create a trip hazard if it dropped;
• caused, permitted or suffered the platform to lower from the surrounding floor area so creating a hazard;
• failed to ensure the platform would remain level;
• exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.

After the accident our client attended the local hospital where he was found to have injured the ligaments in his right knee.  As a result of the accident, our client had to take nine weeks off work as he could not drive until his injured knee was sufficiently healed.  Lawson-West recovered compensation of just over £5900 in respect of our client’s injuries and loss of earnings for the nine weeks he could not work.

Inadequate Health and Safety training led to employee suffering burns

Our client, who had attended a two year college course obtaining NVQ 2 and 3, was employed as a beauty therapist.  She was permitted to carry out eyebrow shaping.  The usual procedure at her employer’s beauty clinic was that the wax required for beauty treatments was kept in pots which were contained in a larger pot which kept the smaller pots at a constant temperature to keep the wax at the right consistency for the job.  The smaller pots were usually checked either after the beauty clinic closed in the evening or first thing in the morning so that sufficient wax at the right temperature and consistency was available for all beauty treatment appointments throughout the working day.

During her employment, our client had not received any induction training or any health and safety training.

Our client arrived at work and knew she had an eyebrow shape appointment half an hour later.  Our client went to the treatment room to prepare for her appointment when she noticed there was insufficient wax in the pots for her to use for her client’s treatment.  Our client went to the stock room to get a fresh wax pot and spoke to a Senior Therapist as she knew the wax pot would not be heated sufficiently in time for the appointment.  The Senior Therapist advised our client to put the pot of wax in the microwave oven for “a minute or two”.  Our client put the wax pot in the microwave for one minute and thirty seconds but checked the pot every twenty seconds or so.  However, the wax still appeared to be hard, even after one and a half minutes.  Intending to stir the wax, our client put a spatula into the wax pot. 

As she did so, the top layer of wax cracked and hot wax splashed onto our client’s hand and forearm.  Our client immediately put her hand under the cold tap and ran cold water on it.  A trained First Aider applied “after wax” cream to our client’s hand and forearm. 

Our client spoke with the owner of the beauty clinic and was advised to put ice on her scalded arm and hand.  Our client said she wanted to go to the local hospital, but no one at the clinic was prepared to accompany our client so she walked to the Accident and Emergency department on her own with a flannel on her arm.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The accident was the employer’s fault because they were in breach of their statutory duties under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and/or Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and/or the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and:-

• failed to undertake an assessment of the risks to our client’s health and safety with regard to the task she was doing;
• failed to ensure our client had suitable personal protective equipment, such as gloves, to protect her;
• failed to ensure our client was given instruction or training so that she understood the risks in the job she was doing;
• failed to provide safe or adequate equipment;
• failed to ensure the wax pots were sufficiently full and prepared before the start of the working day according to the clinic’s own procedures;
• instructed our client to heat the wax in the microwave when it should have been known that it was dangerous to do so;
• failed to provide our client with sufficient warning about how hot the wax would become;
• caused, permitted, required or suffered our client to carry out an unsafe task;
• exposed our client to a foreseeable risk of injury;
• failed to provide a safe system of work for our client;
• failed to provide our client with adequate or appropriate first aid after the accident.

Our client sustained burns to her hand and forearm.  At the hospital she was advised that her hand and forearm should have been wrapped in cling film.  Our client was advised she was at risk of permanent scarring on either her hand or forearm.

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £2420 in general damages for the burns sustained by our client as a result of the accident plus further compensation for loss of earnings, travel and care whilst use of her arm was restricted following the accident.

Poor Maintenance of door shutter led to Crush Injury to Wrist and Hand

Our client usually started her work by opening up the offices in the morning, which involved opening the front door shutters.  Normally, once the shutters have been pulled back, the two parts of the runner tracks on the floor have to be lifted up and to the side where they stay in an upright position.  Our client was not aware of any method of securing the tracks into their upright position and was aware that complaints had been made to management about the tracks falling back down instead of staying in an upright position.  These had been recorded in the Accident Report Book.

As usual, our client started to open the front door shutters.  She had lifted the left side of the runner track up and to the side into its upright position, where it was supposed to stay, and bent down to lift the right side of the runner track up.  Suddenly the left side track fell down onto her hand.

The accident was the employer’s fault because they:-

• were in breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957;
• failed to ensure that the work equipment provided was so constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose for which it was provided or used contrary to Regulation 4(1) of the Work Equipment Regulations;
• failed to have regard for working conditions and risks to health and safety of our client which existed when using the work equipment contrary to Regulation 4(2) of the Work Equipment Regulations by e.g. not providing an alternative method of fixing the tracks in place;
• failed to provide appropriate or adequate equipment for the purpose of undertaking the task;
• caused, permitted, required or suffered the continuance of the practice of using the front door shutters when it was unsafe or unsuitable to do so;
• failed to train or instruct our client how to safely undertake her work or otherwise supervise her to see that she undertook it safely;
• caused, permitted, required or suffered our client to carry out a task of work when it was unsafe to do so;
• failed to warn our client of the dangers of working or prevent her from doing so;
• failed to provide or maintain safe equipment;
• failed to take any adequate care for the safety of our client;
• exposed our client to a danger or trap for a foreseeable risk of injury;
• breached Section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and/or the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 in that there was a failure to provide our client with a safe system of work leaving our client to be exposed to unnecessary injury and failure to take reasonable care that she would be safe whilst carrying out her duties;
• breached Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 by not ensuring that any suitable and sufficient risk assessment was carried out regarding the task our client was doing;
• breached Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 by failing to assess the risks of the health and safety of our client whilst working.

As a result of the accident, our client sustained a crush injury to her left hand and wrist.  She attended hospital after the accident.

Lawson-West, solicitors, began a personal injury claim against her employers.  Lawson-West secured compensation of £2500 for general damages in respect of her injuries.  Lawson-West also secured further compensation for travel expenses and care and assistance as our client could not drive until she had recovered from her injury.

Related Articles:-

Jammed Lever on Work Equipment led to Hand Injury

Trip on packaging strap at work caused Broken Arm

Printing caused a Dislocated Knee

Trip on packaging strap at Work caused Broken Arm

Our client was employed as a Parts Delivery Driver and was walking along a corridor which housed shelving for stationery. As he was walking, he stepped on a white circular strap and his foot got caught in the loop of the strap. He fell forwards on his hands and knees, putting his arms out to try and break his fall. A colleague, who had witnessed the accident, took our client to the office nearby. The accident was recorded in the Accident Book.

The white strap had been removed from a box of paper and, instead of being tidied away, had been left on the floor.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim. Our client had been taken to hospital after the accident where it was discovered he had broken his right arm and injured both of his knees. The accident was the employer’s fault because the employer:-

• failed to comply with The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
• negligently failed to keep corridors free from obstructions which might cause someone to slip, trip or fall and caused the strap to become a danger to our client in breach of Regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
• negligently failed to provide sufficient floor area for the health, safety and welfare of our client at work in breach of Regulation 10 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
• negligently failed to maintain the workplace in an efficient state in breach of Regulation 5 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
• negligently 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 at work in breach of Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
• negligently failed to establish and give appropriate procedures to be followed and to ensure that white straps from stationery boxes are tidied or thrown away and not left lying on the floor in breach of Regulation 8 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
• failed to provide our client with a safe working environment.

Lawson-West secured compensation of £2600 for general damages in respect of our client’s broken arm and knee injuries only.

Jammed Lever on Work Equipment led to Hand Injury

Our client was working as a warehouse operative and was wheeling a trolley, which was half-full of stock, with a colleague.  Our client had to lift two gates using two separate levers and lifted the left hand lever of the first gate with no problem.  Shortly afterwards she pulled the right lever.  Suddenly and without warning the right lever jammed, causing her to hit her right hand against the metal structure.

 

The accident was reported to her employer and written up in the accident book.  The accident was the employer’s fault because they:

 

·         failed to maintain the work equipment in an efficient state, in efficient working order and good repair,

·         breached their duties under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992,

·         breached their duties under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998,

·         failed to have in place a suitable system of inspection and maintenance so that the defect would have been repaired or rectified before the accident,

·         permitted our client to use the right lever to open the gate when they knew or ought to have known it was unsafe to do so,

·         permitted or caused the right lever to become a danger and trap,

·         contrary to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to health and safety of our client to which she was exposed whilst at work,

·         failed to provide our client with a safe place of work,

·         exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.

 

Our client attended hospital after the accident as she had severely bruised her hand, which was put in a sling. She also had to take time off work because she was unable to carry out her normal duties with an injured hand.

 

The employer denied liability as they regularly maintained the gates.  However, in the case of Stark v Post Office, it was made clear that regular inspections and/or servicing of work equipment does not afford a defence in cases where employees are injured by equipment malfunction or failure.  Following a later inspection, some remedial maintenance work was done on the gates, but there was no record of what damage existed prior to the inspection. 

 

A negotiated settlement was achieved with the opponent’s Solicitors after court proceedings were commenced.

 

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £1350 in respect of our client’s injuries and compensation for our client’s loss of earnings because she had to take time off work, travel expenses to and from hospital and painkillers.

 

Related Articles:

 

Trip over wire led to elbow surgery

 

Printing caused dislocated knee

 

Weighbridge trip caused torn ligaments