Rank: Forum user 
|
A competent, qualified engineer is issued with a new grinder when using it the engineer cuts his arm severing tendons meaning he cant got back to work. Engineer puts a claim in stating that he never received any form of information or training when first issued with the new equipment which is stated in the tools and equipment policy. The old grinder was the same model as the new one.
All other documents are correct, compliant and engineer was using the tool correctly. Would compensation have to be paid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If he was using it correctly, how did he cut his arm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Probably, I would think.
I once got involved with and accident to a school caretaker - had fallen off a ladder.
His previous job had been with BT as a linesman - up and down poles all day long etc, using ladders.
He won his case, citing lack of training.
Probably some element of contributory negligence.
Another mad case of H&S law being bonkers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Apologies, the grinder becomes stuck as its pulled out grinder slips and cuts his arm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
He probably will get compensation - since the accident will be perceived that he did something wrong = lack of adequate training and/or supervision (training is the no brainer for insurance companies).
Sympathise fully with you - this seems another case of "where there's blame - there's a claim".
Reminds me of moan I had to endure from self-employed carpenter (20+ years experience in trade) - whose insurance company insisted he went on a 1/2 course every time he bought a new electric drill (same model / make etc.) - not only did he have to pay for the same course every time - but also lost a day's income in attending the course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Years ago i cut my finger off on a circular saw, when i looked at what i had done, I as a profesional time served person made the assumption that it was my fault and as such didnt make a claim. I think people should take at least some responsability for their own actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
quote=evans38004]He probably will get compensation - since the accident will be perceived that he did something wrong = lack of adequate training and/or supervision (training is the no brainer for insurance companies).
Sympathise fully with you - this seems another case of "where there's blame - there's a claim".
Reminds me of moan I had to endure from self-employed carpenter (20+ years experience in trade) - whose insurance company insisted he went on a 1/2 course every time he bought a new electric drill (same model / make etc.) - not only did he have to pay for the same course every time - but also lost a day's income in attending the course.
He should have got a good broker and just moved underwriters himself. An insurance company cannot dictate working practices. Whilst they make recommendations, it would be unreasonable should the recommendations be disproportionate to the risk (re. 'competency' of the individual who is self-employed). Conversely, if they were insisting then the costing and loss of earning should be footerd by them. Which takes me back to my intial point. It is a soft market right now so folk should shop around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You say the new grinder was the same model as the new one, so did he have training for the old one? You say you have a policy that states that training & information will be provided when getting new equipment. That surly means different equipment (new to the person) not it’s just come out of the box. So if there had been training for the grinder initially, then they have had training.
I bet you also have a policy that states employees should not use equipment they are not trained to. You may want to talk to the employee about this, before they claim.
They will probably win if they try, but you may put some doubts in their mind as to whose fault it was really and they may not try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Some things worth bearing in mind that your insurer's claim investigator may find useful;
1 - Training and briefing records, both for the equipment he was using and any associated power tools/plant that he is also qualified to use.
2 - Risk assessment and, where applicable, method statement for the task he was undertaking. Also bear in mind any information relating to how members of staff are aware of the location and use of the documents (so, if they're kept in a filing cabinet or electronically how can they get access).
3 - Records of supervision/staff surveillance. Is there a system in place for a manager/supervisor to periodically review the competence and working practices of members of staff? If so when was the last time the engineer was visited/site checked. Also was there any issues identified in the event that they were checked.
4 - Check the employment history for the member of staff for instances where similar incidents/accidents have occurred. If there is any records of safety related issues, what was done to prevent/reduce recurrence? Also is there any themes in terms of safety related incidents that the member of staff has been involved with?
Finally, the internal investigation will need to be thorough and accurately identify how the accident occurred. This seems a pretty basic statement but giving this some thought I'm struggling to work out how the injury could happen if the engineer was using the equipment in a safe manner. Was he using it one handed when it should have been 2 hands? Was the work being undertaken planned sufficiently to account for any potential difficulties? Were there other members of staff in that location at the time of the accident that could have assisted?
Hate to say it but my experience with PI claims is that even with all of the evidence to hand there'll be something that the insurer feels they can't defend and so a pay out is usually on the cards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No it wont - not necessarily…………………...
Your accident investigation into the incident is crucial this will help defend any claim and if you can demonstrate that the IP had received training on an identical piece of equipment you may get to construct a robust defense. There are also many other factors to consider and investigate here - girders don't just sever tendons when used appropriately - what was he doing how was he using it. Why did it get stuck in the 1st place?
How often is this equipment used - is it the appropriate equipment - don't leave any stone unturned in you investigation.
You investigation may well get you in a strong position full defense or contrib by the injured party - don’t hold up your hands in this matter - get to the bottom of it.
Do you train operatives if other pieces of equipment are replaced after their use in ended e.g. ladders hands tools - what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Nlivesey wrote:...I'm struggling to work out how the injury could happen if the engineer was using the equipment in a safe manner.
DUH! Reading back this is a pretty stupid statement. I mean in the correct manner or as the tool is designed to be used...
I'll get my coat...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Look at Reg 11.1 and 11.2 of PUWER 1998 closely. The duties are a bit contradictory but in essence the word is "practicable" in 11.2 but if you look at 11.1 the standard is effective in preventing which is actually as near absolute in its meaning as one would wish. Training etc are at the bottom of the heirarchy and can only be reached if nothing else is practicable. Seems to me you are now caught at the end of an absolute duty and your only defence is that you did not want or expect the tool to be used for this task.
If however it is a routine task then your RA should have identified the potential for the jamming of the wheel. Certainly if you are accurate in your statement that this was a grinder then just how did it become jammed? Was it being used for cutting off? If so then again the issue moves back to supervision for the apparently regular use of the wrong equipment.
This equipment is dangerous and even competent people need to be refreshed and re-trained periodically. I am fairly sure your insurers will be looking for the least payout possible here. It was/is a serious injury.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DP has made good points here. Investigate correctly and the truth will out.
How was it powered?
If the grinder was stuck was it disconnected from supply/drive etc before being moved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
boblewis wrote: Certainly if you are accurate in your statement that this was a grinder then just how did it become jammed? Was it being used for cutting off? If so then again the issue moves back to supervision for the apparently regular use of the wrong equipment.
Bob
I looked at that line too Bob but just assumed the guy was using an 'angle grinder' (as that is the name most people call them) but using a cutting disc which jammed inside the groove.
Regarding training, most Abrasive wheels training has a practical element with either a bench grinder, angle grinder or stihl saw but not all three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.