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.