Rank: Forum user 
|
If a forklift driver hits another FLT which is stationery (unloading), and the driver is injured...Both have FLT Licenses and are experienced FLT drivers...The collusion was careless driving by the FLT Driver...can the injured party claim of the company? I'm curious, because if all training is provided, safe working procedures, risk assessments, external training etc, and nothing else but an employee's carelessness...does a company still face possible claims against it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would say so,the company would be vicariously liable I would have thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It is very possible if the driver was negligent, you would be held liable vicariously for their action.
But - ask you insurer or loss adjuster.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Was a duty of care owed? = Yes, he was at work.
Was it breached? = Possibly, or the accident would not have occurred.
Was the injury as result of the accident? It appears so from the OP.
Yes, the person could have a possible claim. Is the employer vicariously liable = possibly. Did the driver contribute to his own injury = also possible.
Only can the courts decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The problem is that it will not get to court. The insurance company will agree a settlement as defending the claim would be more expensive than settling out of court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
the company will be vicariously liable yes.
the company can try and recover the costs from the employee through employer's indemnity but it's rare this happens or works.
Lister v Romford ice and cold storage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It's about degree of responsibility here jon joe. For a claim to succeed all the injured person has to show is that 'on the balance of probabilities' their injury was due to something the employer did or didn't do. In a civil claim liability can also be split; so if there's a more than 50% chance that at least some of the damage was due to the company a claim will succeed. This is not a high barrier, which is why it's so hard to stop claims,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The question is how was careless driving allowed to happen in the first place? What did you have in place to prevent careless driving? What was the level of supervision? Did your risk assessments anticipate the possibility of careless driving? Was the level of training and supervision good enough? Can you demonstrate that it was good enough with documented records? When was the training last refreshed?
These are just some of the questions you would have to answer satisfactorily if you wanted to defend a claim. If you can't answer them you are liable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
you are still vicariously liable regardless. the only defence would be 'Frolics of their own' which is an employer will not be responsible for acts done by employees which have nothing to do with their employment. operating the fork truck was however in connection with his employment so your are liable
as mentioned above the option you have is employers indemnity which is where an employer can sue the employee in turn for the tort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not always if he was acting in an unsafe manner, it would be like using the FLT for a purpose it is not meant, i.e. to lift a person on the forks, there have been a few cases were the driver himself was found guilty section 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Section 7 is criminal law not civil law. In addition HASAWA is statute barred so cannot be used in a civil claim. However in the case being discussed the liability would not be vicarious it would be just straight liability because the injured party is an employee of the company. Semantics maybe, but vicarious liability would apply if a member of the public was injured by the FLT driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
PL53 wrote:However in the case being discussed the liability would not be vicarious it would be just straight liability because the injured party is an employee of the company. Semantics maybe, but vicarious liability would apply if a member of the public was injured by the FLT driver.
See above, someone mentioned Lister vs Romford:
http://www.safetyphoto.c...rd_ice__cold_storage.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.