Rank: Super forum user 
|
See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49662134 An example of ‘elf and safety’ gone mad perhaps Essentially the employee's family are wanting to claim against the company's insurance policy for the employees death as it was 'on business'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
"Duty of care on mission" - lets hope such a definition does not end up in RIDDOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"Duty of care on mission" - lets hope such a definition does not end up in RIDDOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not so much h&s gone mad as h&s gone maid! Seriously though, the insurance arrangements in France are very different to those in UK, and this case has little (other than prurient interest) relevance here. I recall (though it may be apocryphal, this not from my personal archive..) a claim from a travelling businessman in a hotel who was injured by a falling wall clock above the bedhead. The claim (against his employer) was dismissed on the basis that witnesses reported he (and an "unknown woman") had been engaged some vigorous physical activity which was repeatedly banging the headboard against the wall under the clock. Hie employers successfully argued he was "on a frolic of his own".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So far as is reasonably practicable does not fully align to the intent of the framework directive and the application of the directive in some member states and even regions in Germany and France can mean that you face a scenario where you have strict liability for ANY event that could prejudice the safety of employees... so again, here we are throwing stones again...yes it is difficult to control and there are many examples of 'world gone mad' you just have to look at any Black and Decker tool manual to see the lengthy instructions and disclaimers as a result of someone trying to scratch his nose with a power drill, to see that litigation can come in many forms and human behaviour means we will never get away from that as we are all blameless aren't we? I didn't do it!...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Let’s face it ‘prurient interest’ make’s a change from the next is it a RIDDOR question!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: Steve e ashton  I recall (though it may be apocryphal, this not from my personal archive..) a claim from a travelling businessman in a hotel who was injured by a falling wall clock above the bedhead. The claim (against his employer) was dismissed on the basis that witnesses reported he (and an "unknown woman") had been engaged some vigorous physical activity which was repeatedly banging the headboard against the wall under the clock. Hie employers successfully argued he was "on a frolic of his own".
That sounds possibly like a misremembering of something to me. There was a similarish case, but it was a woman, and she was a federal employee, and it was a light fitting, which was pulled from the wall (it wasn't shaken loose by the rhythmic activity), in Australia. Although a court did award compensation, it was appealed and when it eventually worked its way through the system to the supreme court it was rejected.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10413743/Australian-woman-loses-bid-for-compensation-for-sex-injury-while-on-work-trip.html
Back to the French case, I think this is just about insurance. I don't think the court has claimed that the activity should have been controlled or risk-assessed by the employer, or that the employer was at fault, only that the insurance company has to pay up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.