Experience warehouse operator using a roll cage to load goods prior to being loaded onto a vehicle. The roll cages have shelves about a 14i nches from the top of the cage. The operator bangs his head on the shelve, despite having used the same equipment for 10 year plus, reports this in the accident book. No lost time. Slight mark on the head, no reports of headaches etc. Risk assessments and SSOW are in place for the use of roll cages Can we remove the shelves?, no as used for lighter goods, employee fault more attention when carrying out role? . 4 weeks later a claim letter from Solicitors claiming injury due to our negligence?

Just an employee (backed by shyster lawyers) trying it on! If you can get backing from management and insurers, defend the case.

Did you not make the use of bump caps a requirement? Bump caps protect the head from such accidents and that is possibly one of the things they are looking to take advantage of. It does seem to be a rather frivilous case but you may find it hard to defend if you have not done such an exercise as testing if one is needed. Resist the case as it does seem to be a test to try and get money out of you, but beware what they are saying you failed to do.

Is this a good example of what Cameron was talking about the other day I wonder? The 'culture' that claims because it is health and safety rather than take responsibility for their own actions/omissions. I agree with the previous comments that, on the face of it, this is the sort of claim that needs robust defence and should carry an expectation of success for the employer. However, the right to claim should not be in dispute in these examples. it is the common outcome that is the issue here. p48

Roll cages are the bain of my life as well. I would urge some caution though before dimissing this off the cuff. I have been told in the past from a trust worthy source of a case where an operative's neck was snapped by a falling shelf on a roll cage leading to a fatality.

Hear hear Bob, Smurf makes an interesting but sad point as well. Could this be a case of health and safety practices failing that resulted in the head injury to the empoyee as opposed to the employee taking the blame?

Would the removal of the shelf be seen by the solicitor of a sign of guilt by the emloyer? The knee jerk reaction to remove anything that is the centre of an incident is understandable but how many other reports have you had? And do you take into consideration the height of your people inside the cabs? Leave the shelf at the moment and have a discussion with your drivers etc and see if they percieve a problem before taking any action. A re inforcement that they should also take care for themselves would also be pertinent I think David

Last posting tonight, off for a well deserved pint (well I have sat doing nothing all day except for cooking lunch and making a sandwich for tea that is). The purpose of a bump cap is to simply provide some protection to the head in very minor bumps of the head, they provide some protection against cuts and bruising to the head from minor knocks, hard hats are for more robust conditions that require better protection. Locomotive fitters always wore bump caps when working under loccomotives which are notorious for bit sticking out that were often hit with the head, just like shelves in cages I would suggest. There is no suggestion that the compensation is warrented in this case and it will be up to the parties involved to decide on that, but as a simple answer to the question of how you can limit the injury from such working conditions it is to provide head protection, end of the story (for today).

It would cost you more to defend a bullying or victimisation claim that you were hit with. This would really want the employees to buy into safety. Shouldn't we as professionals be looking at reducing 'significant risks'. This is one reason that the concept of using 'common sense' will not catch on. These type of claims are encouraged by solicitors and in all probability will go nowhere.

That should have been alledged bumped heads

Every cage I have worked with that has a shelf fitted has been design so that the shelf drops into a locking mechanism when lifted fully upright. Ingood working condition and used properly this should be sufficient. It follows therefore that either the shelf wasn't locked in the upright position or the cage was damaged. If the shelf wasn't locked up, that is either because; it left the DC (Distribution Centre) like that, the operative didn't fully lift it up and lock it or someone tampered with it. The last is unlikely and unforseeable so lets exclude that for now. Did the accident investigation establish what was in the cage and how it was loaded? We always take photo's, make notes of consignment numbers/cage tags so we can challange the DC were appropriate. This especially prudent if using 3pl's (third party logistics providers).

I'm curious as to what the claimant thinks he has lost, or is he just claiming for his "pain and suffering". I know you can't go into the fine detail, but I can't help wonder how much the pain and suffering of a minor bump is considered to be worth, to both the IP or solicitor. £2.50 for the IP and £2,500 for the solicitor ? Don't get me wrong I feel people should be able to claim if injured through not fault of their own, but this is a bit much. I find it hard to believe the IP thinks it is worth it in the long run.

I wonder if the insurers and soilcitors are reading this thread? They do you know.

Well Firestarter if they are they enjoy your interpretation to risk management - provide over 2 million (rough estimate) uk retailer worker with bump caps for stacking shelves on roll cages because one bloke had bumped his head on a cage shelf and put in a dodgy claim What's that's a tenner each - 20 million quid - annual turnover of retail staff will be a minimum of 50% with seasonal work that’s another 10million quid, to issue - than we have to manage it. So 30 million quid investment - annual cost 10 million quid……………………………………. On bumped head…………………... You will keep them busy for years………………………..

Mr Flibble, In order for you to go into your cupboard, you must first have been let out of it. Who let you out of your cupboard and what makes you so special? ;-)

This is now a very funny thread ha ha. Surprised the Mods have not locked us out as we are now having fun? DP I am not a fire starter, contrary to your suggestion, shows how easy it is to get something wrong, I could be arrested, locked up and the key thrown away. Do you really have 2 million employees - all working with this equipment? I am not saying that head protection is the answer, but if it isn't what is? PPE is the last resort but if it does come to that then cost cannot be considered as a single reason not to. Morrison 102 I wonder why you started this thread as you now appear to have your answer, the same one you had in the first place.

One poster asked "are the insurers reading?" I work for an EL insurer although not necessarily the one that is involved here. Couple of points: EL policies state that insurer takes over the running of the claim. So it is not up to the employer to decide whether to fight. And employers should NEVER respond to letters of claim - simply pass them on to broker/insurer. By all means make a strong case for resisting, supply all relevant evidence of training, risk assessments, competence of employee etc etc. All that will assist insurer in mounting a robust defence. Secondly - very good point about what is being claimed here. Think it went along lines of £2.50 for pain & suffering plus £2,500 for solicitor's fees. That is the problem that we all face - but perhaps MrC does not appreciate! So, does insurer defend, risk going to court and losing and then having to pay other side's costs - that will by then have greatly exceeded initial figures? Or do they make an offer of say £1,500 in hope that it will go away. In this case I wouldn't recommend that - too many employee and roll cages to risk it. Bound to result in copy cat claims. But it might take two, three or even four lost claims at £3,000/£4,000 each before problem goes away. Is the employer happy to bear that cost? What to do? Answers on a large stamp please...!! Phil

Phil thanks for your comment and joining the discussion. Yes I do appreciate the position of EL Insurers, but as already stated -The man had used the equipment for ten years – so not new to him - No lost time – so no pay penalty - Risk assessment and SSOW in place, and from others comments the norm - injury was a slight mark on head – I’m assuming from the description it is very minor, so pain and suffering low. - equipment in good condition and maintenance records in place. Seems there is little contest, but you feel there is a risk of losing and so there is an argument against fighting ?. Don’t get me wrong I understand that it can be uneconomical to fight some cases, but this also has the potential to open the flood gates. I also feel that these cases should be taken to court, to deter no win no fee solicitors from fighting unreasonable claims, when they have to pay the other sides costs (or don’t they?) Again do not get me wrong, I feel there is a place in society for insurers and no win no fee solicitors (the masses have the right to be represented), even the necessary evil of Safety Managers. I still find it hard to believe the man thinks he will get anything significant from this, that is worth souring his relationship with his employers. Phil you may not want to answer this, but I really would be interested to know what he would be likely to get for such a minor injury. Say if all the controls that were in place, were not and he would win in court. What would an EL insurer put in reserve for such a claim? For the man and his solicitor.

Well said to the last few posts. It is time to redress the balance and as I said earlier on this thread, or the other one that was running, this is just the sort of situation that businesses often cite as part of the burden of H&S. p48

Hiya Chris, I was not too clear. The JSB is the guidelines for damages alone - I guessed last night because I could not put my hand on my copy - I have just looked and its 1,450ish the other costs are for claimants cost - solicitors etc - it’s all bit of guess work really dependent on admission or denial and other circumstances - it all comes under the title of 'reserve' and this means what it likely to cost in the end - the reserve in this matter would be higher because you are going to fight it - the principle being - you may incur more cost - if it was a case of strict liability and you intended to admit they would be lower. That’s where the whole amount came from. This help ? If not PM and I'll bell you.