I'm currently dealing with something where an operative was moving a table on wheels, and the injured party’s thumb got trapped between the table and a wall. Thankfully, the injury was minor.

The accident pack was completed properly—root cause analysis, preventative actions, manual handling review, and a slight revision to the assessment.

Despite the operative having received both initial by myself and refresher manual handling training via a third-party online provider, I now find myself in the firing line—thanks to a no-win, no-fee solicitor getting involved. 

Apparently, because we didn’t have a specific risk assessment for "tables on wheels," that’s now seen as a gap, even though it falls under our general manual handling controls.

I try to stay proactive, but this has left me feeling like it’s all a bit wasted at times. Has anyone else been in a similar situation?

I’ve moved away from item-specific manual handling assessments (e.g. 1kg pot, 2kg pot) and now use a more generic assessment that focuses on safe lifting principles. Obviously, mechanical aids and equipment have their own risk assessments—but is this not enough anymore?

I think it’s a bit of both, to be honest. Apparently, the manual handling risk assessment and training don’t go far enough because I didn’t specifically mention how to push or pull a table, so they’re saying that’s a gap in the system. That’s the line defence is taking anyway, but I’m not sure where that ends or the line anymore of insignificant risks, or what's precived as insignificant and may no longer be the case? 

I’m still in the earlier stages of my H&S career, but I’ve felt confident in my approach so far - keeping things practical, sensible, and user-friendly. That said, you’ve made a really good point, it’s got me thinking. where  are the operational management team in all of this? Maybe I’ve taken it a bit personally.

Hi Jonny

As thunderchild says "Don't take it personally".

Fact of life. Accident happens and some people go into hindsight mode and ASSUME that there must be fault and if a claim is being made that means that the employer (or other defendant) is to blame.

You (the corporate YOU) might wish to start by looking at who the solicitor is.

Are they a No Win, No Claims company? If so, they won't continue very long if you say NO and they haven't got a strong case.

If one of the legal firms that deal with these things on a repeated basis e.g. the solicitors that are taken on by Trades Unions time after time, then they may well have a strong case. 

However, on the basis of the narrative you give, it doesn't really sound like it.

Remember 1. that the duty is to do what is "reasonably practicable".

2. The OBJECTIVE of a risk assessment is to identify what is to be done to achieve the goal, almost always doing what is reasonably practicable.

For reasons you have already set out attempting to risk assessment each and every task of a similar nature would be counterproductive as well as being immensely resource intensive.

Take a deep breath and consider the defences, based on what a reasonable person would have thought BEFORE the accident. The words used in the case law on what is reasonably practicable are "anterior to".

Time to do some revision on Edwards v National Coal Board!

....but also the less frequently mentioned Marshall v Gotham.

Did they loose any pay as direct consequence of this minor injury? "Pain & Suffering" will be three parts of nothing in any consideration so what does the ambulance chaser think they will be getting?

More importantly does the IP realise that they will see next to nothing once the solicitor takes their cut from any settlement? Unfortunately the IP may now be between a rock and a hard place having agreed to contracted services which will be unlikely to recover solicitor costs.

You have done everything you could.

Make sure all communication is through your insurers - avoid direct dialogue.

Hi all,

Thanks for the encouraging words, it's reassuring to know this kind of thing is just part and parcel of the world we work in. After sleeping on it, I’ve realised I probably did take it a bit too personally.

I wasn’t aware the table was something that was moved daily, and possibly more concerning is that I don’t think operational management were either. Apparently, the fact that someone moved it themselves with no insturction would be viewed as a lack of supervision and seen as undefendable apperently. I’m fairly confident this one doesn’t sit with me totally. 

The person involved lost no time and worked the full shift, which caught me off guard to be honest, I thought most claims were based in loss of earnings.

Thanks, Peter. I’ll look into that.

Hi Johnny

Looking at your earlier response: “  Apparently, the manual handling risk assessment and training don’t go far enough because I didn’t specifically mention how to push or pull a table, so they’re saying that’s a gap in the system.”

Well if you look at the law the requirement is to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and to record the findings of that risk assessment. There is no requirement to produce a detailed gap free method statement for every single possible task, which seems to be what the claimant’s lawyers are asking for.   As far as training goes there is no requirement for  employees to be fully trained in every possible task, they might carryout, instead it has to be “adequate”.  There is no clear legal definition of “adequate” but the HSE website says that the training should include the following:

• hazards (things that could cause them harm)
• risks (the chances of that harm occurring)
• measures in place to deal with those hazards and risks
• how to follow any emergency procedures

all rather generic.

 So it’s just a case of ambulance chasing lawyers trying to frighten people into giving in early by saying that all risk assessments are not suitable and sufficient and that all training is  inadequate because it makes their job easier and more profitable.

HSSnail, I think that part may now be out of my hands and sits with our director.

Just an update though, we had a third party out to assess liability, and they’ve recommended that we accept liability due to the lack of training on how to move the table from A to B and no safe system of work in place.

Unsure what'll happen going forward now. I’ll be taking this as a lesson learned about how the world of insurance actually works, not going to get too bogged down and just try to focus on the positives of why we do what we do. 

Thanks everyone! 

All the above is all good theoretical advice and practice.

From experience I have a couple of questions (hopefully to make you feel better).

Are you actually dealing with the claimants solicitor?  I would have thought that you would only deal with your insurance companies Loss Adjuster.  If this is the case, while you are, quite understandably, feeling deflated over a perceved failure to manage this situation theLoss Adjuster is ONLY doing a commercial calculation on behalf of the Insurers (not your company).  They are weighing up the cost of the potential 'no fault' settlement against the cost of potentially defending it.  If you have an overwhelming evidence pack the insurers can use to scare the claimants solicitors into backing down with minimal cost to the ensurers thats could be what you are being asked for.

Beyond that, I would suggest its nothing more than a game of financial chicken at this stage and Id give it no more thought.  Sometimes you can have every possible i dotted and every possible t crossed and the insurers will still pay out.  Remember this does not mean you didn't do your job or the company was at fault, just that the cost to challenge was more thean the cost to pay.

In 30 years of dealing with claims, real and fabricated, thankfully few and far between over the last decade or so, I have never once spoken to an actual solicitor.  On only 1 occasion has a solicitor been involved from a claims handling company; claims via 'no win, no fee' companies are normally dealt with by low level admin staff until quite an advamced stage and most are settled or closed well before then.  

Loss adjusters or insurers solicitors will not be interested in any case law you believe is relevent and less in interpretations for statutory law.  As soon as you pass the claim to them, other than providing evidence your job is over.  It is also rare indeed that the insurers can be convinced to defend any claim because the defendant company wants to defend itself.  Its purely a financial decision for them in the interests of their business; not yours!

All in all, my advice would be to chalk it down to experience, befriend your loss adjuster, try to get your loss adjuster to explain to your management how the insurance industry actually works and just do your best.  Hopefully your best will reduce the amount of potential claims but this is far from guaranteed.

Keep chugging away it sounds like you are doing fine.

Originally Posted by: achrn

someone had to design the indicators on a BMW

It appears no one is training those behind the wheel how to use them.

Originally Posted by: Coyle07

I had typed a rather lengthly response but it just comes across like a rant, so below is the toned down version.  For me, this is complete nonsense.  

"You're not expected to eliminate all risks but you need to do everything 'reasonably practicable' to protect people from harm."  In my opinion it is not reaosonably practicable to complete a SSOW for a routine task such as this.  It defeats the whole purpose of what SSOWs are for, and turns HS into a paper excercise which it very much should not be.

To me it looks like you've got a solicitor trying their hand and is looking to benefit from the inexperience (no offence!) within your organisation on dealing with this type of things.  This type of nonsense would get forwarded to our brokers and never be heard of again.

Just remember that the term "as far as is reasonably practicable" comes from Criminal Law and personal injury claims are part of Civil Law "duty of care".

Start mixing up these terms and in the unlikely event an actual lawyer gets involved they will likely not be kind.

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Hi Holliday, agreed - but only in part since much of the history of civil claims has been largely based on civil liability for breach of statutory duty, such that the key cases on interpreting what is or, perhaps more importantly is NOT, reasonably practicable arose from CIVIL cases not from prosecutions.

In terms of simple civil law, usually the threshold is what is "reasonable",  which may often be even less stringent than what is "reasonably practicable".

Since determining what is reasonable often comes down to working out what should be expected of the "reasonable man" aka "The man on the Clapham omnibus", then what is or is NOT reasonably practicable will be very likely to be part of the debate. 

And I agree with you but again only in part.  Theoretically I fully agree but practically, in my experience for injury claims, Loss Adjusters don't care about these subtelties and lawyers care even less.  Even then, it only really becomes relevent should a case get to court, at which point I've not met a laywer yet who takes on the legal opinion of a client.