Posted By lajoni
3 mths agog I was knocked over by a reach truck ...

basically what happened was that I was walking along the marked walkway and was caught in the side of my right foot by the left fork of the truck as it went to turn infront of me ....

I was off for 2 mths with a very bad sprain which is still painful now but because of my age 53 it will probably , according to my and the works doctor, always be week with some pain and I also twisted my arm which is infact more painful than my foot.

My quandry is colleagues are advising me to put in a claim, but my argument is it wasn't the companies fault but the driver who was going round the corner forks first?...even so he didn't do it intentionally and has been taken off vehicles for 6 mths

The company have been very good and had a full investigation and offered me reduced hours etc but colleagues say they have to do that anyway and I should be looking out for number 1

Any views on this

Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Hi

There will come a time when you will not be able to claim, due to the time limit imposed by the statute of limitations.
In view of some recent court cases in Ireland, I would not advise you to wait and see.
I would advise you to seek the advice of a good solicitor.


Seamus

Posted By lajoni

Yes I should have been there it was the walkway next to my working area,in this company the pedestrians have right of way when on these walkways and the young lad driving was apparently looking the other way to see if all was clear....he came from behind me and turned into me.

I know nothing about these vehicles but our outbound operations manager(also our head of H&S) told me he should never have been driving forks first....also when anyone has any incident on a vehicle they are automatically taken off whilst it is investigated then the appropriate action put into place and also go through retraining before being allowed back on.The driver was licenced.

I was off work for 8 weeks and was sent for twice by taxi to see the works Doc...I didn't lose any pay, had to cancel going to a wedding but otherwise no major upheavel....won't be climbing Everest anytime soon but hey I can live with that

Think I'll just thank my lucky stars the lad wasn't driving faster ...at the time he was more shook up than me

Thanks for your thoughts...really appreciated

Laj

Posted By garyh
If you are concerned that the employer is "not at fault", I would say that by definition, there must have been a failure in manageemnt systems somewhere.

Has an investigation taken place to identify the UNDERLYING causes? The IMMEDIATE cause may be FLT driver driving without enough care........but what lies beneath?

You will probably find that there is a lot more to it (eg selection and training of drivers, management of vehicle & personnel interaction, and so on).

In short - yes, consult a Solicitor. Why should you lose out?

Posted By Ian_P
Can't hold back any longer.....

"yes, consult a Solicitor. Why should you lose out?"

"there is a good basis for a claim"

"Companies have insurance for a reason."

"I would advise you to seek the advice of a good solicitor."

I thought I was on a Trade Union discussion forum for a minute then! Are these really comments of professional safety practitioners?

Yes if companies are negligent, then yes people may be entitled to compensation (although you cannot jump to the conclusion of negligence off so little facts) but is it our place, or responsibility, to give this advice??

You are advising people to do one of the many things you are employed to prevent.

Isn't that a little ironic.....

Posted By Pete Longworth
Ian
We are employed to prevent people getting hurt at work, not to prevent them making claims. If an employer is negligent and someone is hurt because of it then any claim that results is probably justified. As for this being a trades union site, I try to take an objective, even handed approach. Maybe you should look at your own objectivity.

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Ian

Don't forget that this is a public forum and respondents are not necessarily professional safety advisors.

Paul

Posted By Ian_P
Exactly, people wouldn't advise their own fellow employees to make a claim but they are more then happy to advise others (I accept that not everyone on the thread is a practitioner)

I agree with you totally that the only to stop claims is to prevent accidents. A claim on its own will never prevent injury, harm and suffering.

In that sense, and back to my original point, we should not be advising people to visit solicitors. As safety practitioners our first piece of advice should be that they should speak to their manager, HS manager etc. and ensure that something has been done to stop the accident happening again!!

THAT is our responsibility.

Posted By Pete Longworth
That's fair comment, but the initial post on this thread asked a direct question. Should he make a claim or not. Just because I am a health and safety practitioner doesn't mean I can't express a view on this. I firmly believe that companies that injure their employees through negligence deserve to suffer the financial penalty either through prosecution or litigation. You are right to point out that their may not be enough evidence presented in this case to judge whether a claim would be successful but that is not the issue. The issue is should the individual concerned pursue a claim to try to receive some recompense for his injury. The courts will decide on the evidence. In mitigation he says that "it wasn't the company's fault it was the fault of the driver." The company is liable for the actions of all its employees so from that point of view it is the company's fault.
In the context of the whole issue I am not the company's health and safety advisor I am a private citizen and therefore entitled to express a view. My view is go for it.

Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Hi,

I was away for a few hours and was suprised to see this topic got so many responses,

"I would advise you to seek the advice of a good solicitor."
I even see that my above quote was mentioned.
My advise would still be the same, it is not for me to suggest negligence or not,however to sort out the matter, and being aware that a clock is ticking, i made the suggestion.

I will not comment on whether the employer did all that was reasonably practical.
I will leave that up to the insurance company or indeed counsel for the employer.I am sure no expense will be spared there.

The statute of limitations may be 3 years in the UK, it was 3 years in ireland, but is now 2 years, ( the state here even tried to reuce it to 1 year, but i understand the Law society intervened)


if there was injury due to negligence should a claim not be lodged. I have met too many injured people,attended too many funerals which should not have occured, and met some employers which in my view should not be allowed to employ people, because everything they do is dangerous!!

Now I have met some very good employers and they really look after their staff, but others are not nice and even deduct from their employees the cost of ppe, training etc Ok the laws say it cant be done, but who enforces it.

Seamus

Posted By AF
I am flabberghasted at some of the advice given, whether or not this has came from respected H&S practitioners or not, I'll reserve judgement.

I dont really want to condone the employer in this instance, as he in SOME cases has demonstrated that he is a caring employer (could be that he wants to avoid the potential for a claim in the first place).

What you have to remember is that Lajoni only suffered some loss (his pain from his injury), there was no financial loss in the first instance, as his employer paid his salary "I was off work for 8 weeks and was sent for twice by taxi to see the works Doc...I didn't lose any pay, had to cancel going to a wedding but otherwise no major upheavel....won't be climbing Everest anytime soon but hey I can live with that"

Nor is he likely to suffer any future loss.......... or is he?

In addition "The company have been very good and had a full investigation and offered me reduced hours etc but colleagues say they have to do that anyway and I should be looking out for number 1"

Be very hard to prove losses

I would be more concerned with what happened, how and why?

I disagree with the comment and the allegation that RTITB recomment that trucks should NOT be driven with forks forward.

Never came across this whenever I was involved in FLT training with a registered RTITB instructor.

I would be more concerned with the adequacy of the segregation of pedestrians/traffic???

Why were there no barriers? in some cases I do agree that it is not always possible to install barriers, otherwise the traffic routes may be unsatisfactory in the first place.

The employer appears to be doing everything expected as a reasonable employer - suspending the driver whilst the investigation is pending -

Looking at the adequacy of the driver skills, the training received, the events leading up to the accident, why did the forks clip the pedestrian walkway, etc

What you also have to bear in mind (and no disrespect to Lajoni) is whether the information supplied by the employee is in fact true or not.

It is amazing how many employees do actually bend the truth in order that they misapportion blame elsewhere.

I do not mean to be cynical, however in such instances you have to approach these things with an open mind before proceeding.

Alex

Posted By lajoni
Wow didn't expect such a large response....first thing I am a woman...secondly the incident was witnessed by other colleagues who supported my account and so did the driver.....he was looking behind him to see if it was clear and when he turned back round he had hit me ...I didnt see him approach at all until he hit me.

We have no barriers as vehicles have to have access to the work areas and the docks and unfortunately have to cross the walkways to get to these areas

Incidently this is a major worldwide company

Thanks for all your input

Posted By AF
PLease substitute the male tense to the female tense in my previous posting (ie Him to her, he to she, etc)

May well be better to be anti-sexist in future and use they, them, etc.

My RTITB instructor always stated that forks should be no higher that 6 inches from ground when travelling.

"its easier to mend damage below the knee than above the knee" I can honestly say hand on heart that was his quote.

The only recommendation that FLT will drive in reverse is if their front view is obscured, then driving in reverse is the normal (turning round to see the direction of travel, of course).

If I remember correctly there was a publication RTITB Lift Truck Operator and Instructor Training Recommendations which provided some guidelines FLT driving. Not sure if this was available to those outwith completing a RTITB training course.

Alex

Posted By AF
Philip

Read the original comments made by Lajoni.......!

She was walking along a pedestrian walkway when she was struck by a turning forklift.

Hardly think flashing lights, intermittent sirens/beacons or whatever would have prevented this, nor would the wearing of a high vis vest.

Pedestrian routes should be designed as such, and traffic routes should be designed as such.

If pedestrians require to cross to another part of the factory, then designated crossings can be designed into the layout.

This has not happened in this instance.

Why........!

The forklift truck has encroached the pedestrian walkway.

This to me is as clear as anything, and construes the root cause of this particular incident.

Therefore..............!

Adequate barriers?
Adequate design of walkways?
Adequate design/layout of traffic routes?
Adequate FLT driving practices?
Adequate training of FLT operators?
Adequate employee awareness in using walkways?
Adequate systems in place?
Adequate supervision?
Adequate Management of H&S?
etc, etc

At the end of the day, pedestrians have the right of way........!

After all you wouldnt like to see a turning lorry mount a pavement when you are walking by?

Posted By Jean
I would be very surprised if Lajoni didn't print off all the responders to her posting, took it to a solicitor, and he/she used them towards putting a case together for her against the company.

Where non health and safety individuals are concerned should we not be careful that the word may get out, that to determine whether you have a case or not, post it on the IOSH site free of charge, and see what the professionals come up with as arguments for your case.

Apologies if I appear to be sounding cynical. I took a decision when I first saw this posting not to come up with a potential case for Lajoni

Posted By Ian_P
No, but it seems there is another strata of safety professionals who won't advise people to seek compensation and consult solicitors going off so little facts.....

...a safety professional who realises that he / she's not an expert in civil law after taking a NEBOSH course.....(apologies to those who have taken a law degree)

Legal advice should not be our responsibility. Accident prevention is.

Lets hope Lajoni is compensated, if it is necessary and legally just.

Lets hope we are not fuelling a spurious claim with this insane thread.