A refurbishment company engages sub-contractors to carry out a number of tasks on site. 18 months ago a sub-contractor cut himself on the back of his leg whilst using his own stanley knife to cut coving, and is now claiming from the company's insurers. There were no apparent witnesses and the company representative on site had provided workbenches to assist with the task. Not sure about the level of supervision or about checks on competence of sub-contractor but that is another issue. I am struggling to understand liability here. I understand s3 and CDM apply. If anyone has any useful comments to a) clarify liability and b) put something in place to prevent recurrence. PS - keep it simple, please and avoid quoting legislation in detail. Thank you in anticipation.

This might be the case but I need a better understanding of liability as I want to prevent similar claims.

I don't believe I am asking a lot - I would not have posted if I did. Thank you for the lecture on civil law and defences. I may have muddied the waters with my original post. The point is that I am looking for a simple explanation as to liability as I am struggling to understand how a contractor can make an insurance claim and, more importantly, what can I do to prevent similar, possibly spurious, claims in the future or are we in 'the employer is always to blame' territory?

If it is a bother to you, and I'm sure you do not speak for the rest of the people on this forum, then do not respond. I'm not convinced anybody in the forum does want a lecture? You are right, it does relate to a civil matter, but also criminal liabilities come into play. I am not trying to 'seek the golden chalice', whatever that means and resent the implication that I seek to prevent people making claims. Thank you for your contribution. There is no need for you to respond to this unless you have anything useful to add.

It isn’t a ‘bother’ although the fact is that I HAVE made the effort to respond I am perplexed at your rather ungracious and ungrateful response to someone who has sat down and taken the time to try to do so. The secret of getting the answer you want is as always to provide a clear brief to start with. When you post on here you will hopefully understand that there is NO indication WHATSOEVER to any of us as to your level of knowledge of experience. So, it is difficult to know how to pitch the level of the answer. You said “I need a better understanding of liability” and go on to say “I am looking for a simple explanation as to liability”. Therefore I think that my answer was a reasonable attempt to do just that; explain the ‘rules’ as they apply to civil liability. It was NOT intended to be patronising nor a lecture to you or anyone else I was merely trying to answer your post based on the (limited) information in front of me. I accept that I may have misinterpreted what you were asking and I wonder if you are likely to accept that your post isn’t perhaps as clear or lucid as it might be? As I say, I find your response perplexing to say the least! You say that you “resent the implication that I seek to prevent people making claims“, but isn’t that EXACTLY what you have said that you are trying to do in #1 “put something in place to prevent recurrence.” (unless you meant prevent someone cutting their leg!!) and #5 “what can I do to prevent similar, possibly spurious, claims in the future”? More to the point there is NOTHING to resent. Whether you like it or not, the reality is that there is nothing you or I can do to stop people MAKING claims, whether they are genuine, reasonable, spurious or vexatious. That is the golden chalice/Holy Grail being referred to. What you CAN do is to have systems, processes etc etc etc in place to help DEFEND a claim should one arise. Theoretically, this can be accomplished by preventing situations that cause injury or ill health as the result of a breach of a duty/duties (common law or statutory). In reality many of us accept that claims can and do succeed even where there is no liability or where liability is not accepted, merely because the insurer will take a (short term) financial view of whether it is cheaper to settle rather than defend. If you are asking “what makes this person think that they have a claim or that someone else other than themselves are liable”, then I don’t know and nor will anyone else. The reasons that people make claims are many, some entirely genuine and reasonable and at the other end of the scale some are totally contrived, and all shades of grey in between. You might also reflect that in my original post I did say that “I would find it difficult to accept that the hiring company rather than the contractor (if anyone at all) is likely to be found liable.”. i.e. I find it difficult to believe that there is likely to be any liability on either the client or the contractor; that isn’t to say that the claim won’t succeed though (see above) I hope that was more ‘useful’?

Rolland, you have stated the CDM regs, so I am assuming the project is notifiable? So there is a process that needs to be followed and you have already stated that the PC has provided work benches for cutting. I am assuming then that the PC is adhering to the spirit of CDM? What I am trying to get at, is in, any investigation there needs to be a process of elimination and I would have thought that the PC could quite easily show that he has adhered to the law and therefore, the contractor should be claiming from his insurances for his employee or the individual would make a civil claim himself, it sounds to me that someone is trying it on and banking on a quick claim and I would have thought this would come into the realms of "