Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Paul Price
Actual scenario worker slips on a slippery substance: reports accident bruising to backside (declined First Aid ) H & S officer fills in accident form an investigates cause no RIDDOR said worker stays at work and works overtime for six weeks running then !! claim for an accident at work . Personally I think this person will loose this case as we did everything by the book . I must say this claims culture seems to be rampant and a rip off ie % these companies take from winning claims .I have to state my case with a solicitor on Friday any advice would be welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MAK
why was there a slippery substance where the employee could slip and injure himself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MAK
I should have added that it sounds like you might have done everything you should or could have done after the event, but what did the employer do to attempt to prevent against such an event? Does your H&S/maintenence/cleaning regime etc information defend a case against negilgence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Price
Risk assessment was done on this substance
and PPE should be worn (Non slip safety shoes )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
Was it actually a slippery surface that he slipped on or was it just a normal surface? As has been said before you need to be armed with your risk assessment,info on cleaning regimes and any procedures etc for cleaning of spillages.
I'm intrigued by what first aid would be offered for this injury - I suspect I would probably decline first aid as well!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MAK
Paul,
Other things that are likley to come up:
Was the person wearing his "last line of defence item" PPE shoes?
did the risk assessment include for this substance being spilled on the floor? being a slip hazard?
who spilled the substance or how did it get on the floor? why wasnt it immediately cleaned up?
what is the substance normally used for?
Relevancy is that for example i.e if substance was used a cleaning agent and left in an unsafe/unsigned/unbarriered off state, then the shoes of invincibility cant work. If the substance shouldnt have been there, then you have other problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Mac
Slip = Payout simple as that, unless you can prove it was purely due to the IP's negligence but I have a funny feeling you will have a tough case to defend.
But I totally agree with you some of the calims I deal are beyond belief and the situation is getting worse each year.
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Paul
From what you say you knew the substance was likely to be slippery, I remember similar substances such as duct-lube very well. The issue of non-slip shoes, however, has to be part of an overall management programme for such materials. The programme would also look at spill prevention and stability of containers etc. Without this level of detail you are going to have a fight on your hands.
If you know liquids may spill and be slippery then you must manage the consequential risks. Who is to know whether the employee was merely strugling on in the face of overwhelming financial need for six weeks. Of course it may not be the case but can you prove it - thats the real nub. The commercial reality will probably say to your insurer that payment is best. Claims, even no win no fee, can only succeed while employers continue to be unable to evidence clear actions against known risks.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Paul wrote "I must say this claims culture seems to be rampant and a rip off ie % these companies take from winning claims "
Well if it is "rampant", it is only because workplace incidents continue unabated (to use the idea that there are too many).
Personally, I think people injured through no fault of their own should pursue their rights when they can. Just as we pursue them to follow the laws that protect them - we can't have it both ways.
As for the percentage taken, if we are concerned about that perhaps we should make the system easier for the injured party to receive compensation and then they wouldn't go to the ambulance chasers..?
In my opinion, and my sector, it is not "rampant" but each time it happens, it points to a failure and we should be eliminating those if we can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Price
Thanks for all your feedback. The substance involved was a chemical called Furosemide ( A powder) the MSDS states nothing about this chemical being slippery so preventative measures were not there until a member of staff bought it to my attention . We have a strict housekeeping regime in our factory were spills etc are to be cleaned when they happen . I have used non slip safety shoes on this chemical in the area which it happened and they work . It oe transpires that the injured party was wearing overshoes over the safety shoes rendering the non slip sole useless. As for the person struggling on for six weeks weell , they have not had any time off at all other than for holidays since this happened nor was any back pain bought to my attention as i have an open door policy when it comes to H and S . Its my belief that ths person has been goaded on by some " Lockeroom Lawyer" We will see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
The claim culture is not as bad as you think.
I think what Paul is miffed about is the fact that this person carried on working for 6 weeks including overtime after the event. Obviously no lasting injures. Were there any witnesses to the event? Is the person still employed?
Insurance company will probably pay up as it will probably cost more to fight. But that does not make it right.
I have no problem with people making a claim if they were injured through no fault of their own. But how many IP can say it was through no fault of their own?
I've had loads of employees come up to me and say the floor is slippy and then you look at what they are wearing on their feet i.e. flip flop's with a heel on and a nice shiny sole, or they were running, messing about, not looking where they were going or they have found the smallest crack in the pavement.
But hey that's what keeps us in a job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Paul
In response to your request for 'any advice', I suggest you might usefully check two paths that a competent solicitor would explore.
1. how well you have controlled for human error, applying the guidance set out in HS(G)48, 'Reducing error and influencing behaviour'(HSE). Footwear is only one relevant control. Prominent warning notices and periodical reminders in emails or newsletters may be other relevant controls.
2. The other is the HSL guidance on preventing slips, trips and falls, which includes physical, chemical and architectural perspectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer
I understand where Paul is coming from. The fact that this person carried on working for 6 weeks including overtime after the event. Obviously no lasting injures.
I remember a previous employer in a similar scenario, an alleged accident, slipped on a spud of all things. No ill effects, nothing reported, no witnesses, worked for a further 3 months or so then decided to go on the sick (citing their "injuries" as a reason).
The employee eventually resigned and submitted a claim for injuries and loss of earnings.
Cue 3years later (with plenty legal wanglings and correspondence in between) the result £3K payout the the day before trial???
There are words that I could describe this person, but I will not for fear of being censored by the moderators.
Reason insurance company paid up as it was cheaper than going to trial
But that does not make it right.
The world has gone mad!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Paul
The substance you state is a diuretic drug and I am a bit perplexed as to why sufficient quantities were on the floor to cause such a slip.
Taking your words at face value, yes I have no problem with your assertion that the person is being urged on BUT there must have been a major failure in your systems to allow this material to remain on the floor. Clearly your description suggests this is a clean area, why else were overshoes being worn. They are likely to be on free issue from your store and may it seems be used inappropriately or the risks of their use was not noted. Either way I think your insurers will see this as a case that you may wish was not taken through the courts.
I think you need to re-assess the use of these overshoes, I always have problems where they are used. Also your spill control procedures seem to flexible enough for people not to clean spills immediately, which is what I would expect for any drug spillage.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Eden
To make a claim for damages I thought three things had to be in place to ensure a case of compensation is payable
1.The employer owes a duty of care to the claimant
2.That the duty of care has been breached (if you are not being investigated by the HSE hard to prove you have not done everything that is reasonably practical)
3.As a result of that breach the claimant has suffered a loss/sustained damages (the only one here would be pain & suffering before & after trial).
For someone to carry on working (with over time) for 6 weeks after an incident my personal opinion would be to pay your own solicitor to defend the action and tell the supposed injured party to take a running jump and remind them when you win the case you will require your legal fees paying by the claimant and how will he pay for it when he's out of a job for bringing a vicarious claim against his employer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Mark
Steady on there a minute. Paul has admitted on a public forum that a material was spilt on the floor and that the operative slipped on it while wearing overshoes supplied from almost undoubtedly his stores. The type of material suggests it was a product spill and there is a duty of care to keep floors in good order. Heads 1 and 2 are therefore met. The debate will be about injury and sufering ie the quantum.
Furthermore any approach such as yours could be regarded as at the very least bullying but also potentially close to blackmail and also certainly victimisation. Imagine this argument - " M'lud my client is an employee with an excellent record with this employer. He slipped on a spillage that was not cleaned up and was threatened with dismissal when he started to investigate the compensation aspects". Would you wish to be that company?
It is one reason why you need to be very careful about giving details of active cases on this forum.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PH
Experience tells me that no matter how good a 'defence' argument may be - most times for minor falls, back injuries etc. the insurance company will settle. Quicker, cheaper etc. etc. Maybe if a few more insurance companies challenged and won (despite the fact it may cost more in the short term)it may deter some of the more 'dubious' claims that arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Why was a drug allowed to remain on the floor ?
(apart from the slip, there is always dust inhalation). Obviously, you have a cleaning problem.
Six weeks working in pain ?
Hmmm.
Don't moan about compensation, many workers get no sickness or injury pay. So what do you expect.
It's ok for managers to sit on their backsides at home when ill, on full salary. Try living on 70 quid a week for a while. That was probably why the worker had to work.
The compensation culture isn't the problem. The problem is the couldn't-care culture that is rampant in the UK.
Take a tip from this, get some decent cleaners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GARRY WIZZ
I must be very old fashioned.
If I slipped over.. well I should look at where I am going because the world is full of billions of trip hazards and if I am not going to be observant then i expect to land on me tail and as my dad would say... let that be a lesson to you son.
So I would report the hazard but I would not be suing my employer.If i had 'ricked' a joint then I daresay my employer would not be sacking me for a weeks light duties. just a Little give and take, a little bit grey and not all black/white, yes/no, guilty/innocent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Garry
As a legalistic pedant I would say the opposite of guilty is not guilty, and the opposite of innocent (unkowing) is nocent (knowing). The degrees of black, white without grey are being forced by those who believe that all minor accidents are simply aspects of a claims culture. Nobody can pre-empt the courts' decisions and it is wrong to think that judges make awards purely because of societal pressure. Most of them are pretty canny most of the time.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By BB
Hi Paul,
Steve and Mark have made the most interesting points.
The company obviously have a duty of care to the individual. It may, or may not have been breached. But was there a loss?
I think the case hangs on this one point alone. The claimant obviously has no financial loss so is the guy feigning injury, pain and loss of amenity?
Pub lawyers have probably been advising him so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.