A labourer working for the company, hired a piece of equipment that he had no prior training on nor asked permission from the site manager, He consequently injured himself and put in a claim against the company who is at fault. The man for obtaining the equipment form the hire shop without consent or the company for not having more stringent policies in place to stop people from hiring at will.

Isn't the point that he ordered the equipment without consent the crux of this, otherwise the company would have inducted him on the said piece of equipment and a suitable risk assessment would have been carried out

If the employee was injured during his hours of work, regardless of him ordering the equipment, the solicitors will argue, was he supervised and trained, the answer is no, he wasn't. Was a RA completed maybe not, was he given a purchase order, or was it on the company account, where was the site foreman/manager. On this case its fair to say he will be paid the claim

The other thing to consider is had he been told NOT to do this, sometimes we miss out telling people what they can't do. Policies/procedures should be robust and clear enough to spell out what we can and can't do, as common sense isn't always sufficient. (I once drafted a drugs and alcohol document and on proof reading realised I hadn't clearly stated that drugs and alcohol must not be consumed...) Had they done this before and was it common place in the company to hire pieces of equipment adhoc ? I think like Ray you may be able to try and offset some of this as contributory negligence. It would be good to know how this pans out, perhaps a post in the future with the outcome?

You don’t say what the kit was, what he was doing, what the injury was etc etc etc. Of course the issue of liability will normally be established on the careful examination of ALL of the facts of the case. Similarly whether the claim is ‘bogus’ or not, doesn’t mean the claim will be unsuccessful or not. Some ‘bogus’ claims succeed, some don’t. Some ‘genuine’ claims succeed, some don’t. The answer as always is ……………IT DEPENDS! Mind you, I bet there’s someone who can miraculously determine the answer on the basis of the information provided! However, on balance I would guess that there is a reasonable chance that the claim might succeed (or is that the cynic in me?) and the defence will probably try for some contrib. (may or may not get it) IT DEPENDS – oopps have I already said that? CAPS used for emphasis.

Much depends on what is accepted custom and practice. e.g. it seems implausible the labourer paid for hire from his own pocket? Someone presumably authorised this hire, and that implies a responsibility and reference to PUWER.

I'm with Canopener on this - it all depends. There isn't really enough info to be abel to sate one way or the other. But I would comment It isn't a "bogus" claim there has been an injury and the injured party has presumably been advised that there is a chance of compensation. I may have missed it but there does not seem to have been any consideration of the fact that the individual may have been a labour only sub-contractor (LOSC). That may well give him the right to hire equipment "in his own right". However, those who employ LOSCs should pay attention to what they do and how they do it... since in many cases any injuries to such persons end up as claims against their employers EL policies. Those who employ LOSCs are well advised to take careful note of what they do, how they do it etc... treat them as employees is sound advice. And that means train them, get them to follow your own risk assessments, SSoW etc. And do not let them hire in equipement without your say so. Phil .