Hi Gregg,

Two weeks later? I wouldn't even entertain this nonsense. The recipient is liable for their own delusions.

Morning Gregg

I'm with Brian on this.

You don't say whether the "recipient" is an organisation or perhaps a private buyer but overall the same broad priniciples apply.

If I buy building materials from a DIY supplier and pay for materials and delivery, unless the contract says otherwise I am paying for safe delivery, NOT for me to help unload the back of the wagon - just like my supermarket delivers to my front door which means negotiating numerous stairs.

If the supplier doesn't invest in the reources needed to enable that to happen whether that be a mate for the driver, mechanical handling equipment or whatever, the supplier probably has a legal problem if the buyer is in effect forced to do things that they may not be suited to doing.

Now the insurers/lawyers might want to argue about cause and effect, not least as a result of the two weeks between delivery and initial indication of resultant injury but that is just routine claims management stuff.

P

Am sorry but I am going to have to fill this under “Not enough information”.

 “Delivery to site requires manual off load as no mechanical aids;”-who is saying this and when. The customer (not saying recipient as this  isn’t clear either) might not realise that this is an issue for the delivery driver ; they might assume for example that the vehicle has a tail lift or that the delivery vehicle comes with its own forklift truck? We just don’t know.

 Similarly we don’t when it  became apparent that something was needed. The delivery driver might have assumed that the customer had a loading bay and turned up to find they had brought the wrong equipment or as often  happens they just turn up and expect someone to pull something out of the hat (“I just drive the vans mate!”)

The customer should have an idea what they are receiving be  it a small  box or  a massive packing case weighing a ton. What are the customers instructions when receiving goods (are then any instructions about manual handling)? If they were turn away a load because it was too big to handle safely, what would the boss say?

Is the customer the same as the “recipient” and are they suggesting suing  the delivery company rather than their employer?  It should be easier to sue  the employer, they have the established duty of care.

Something like this happens every day mainly because people are not looking a ahead just moving the stock- “We got to move these refrigerators, we gotta move these color TVs”

As I see it there are 4 potential parties that could have some civil liability.  First, the supplier, for not ensuring the delivery people were aware that 2 people were required to offload the delivery. Second, the delivery company (if a third party was used) for not ensuring 2 people were provided for offloading (or better still suitable mechanical aids were provided), Thirdly the customer, if they had agreed or it was custom and practice for their staff to assist in offloading when required. And lastly, the injured individual, if what they did was reckless.

In practice, the claimant's approach is simple. Their initial claim is against their employer. If it is decided that any injury was suffered 'in the course of work' and the individual was not 'on a frolic of their own'  the employer may be found liable and initially pay out the compo (if the other requirements for a negligence claim are met). The employer can then bring their own case to try and get the courts to assign any 'shared liability' across the other parties. Both these can be done at the same time, with multiple respondents to the initial claim, where the court first decides if the claim is valid, and thus compo is to be paid and at what level, and then the court will assign % of the amount across the respondents based on the Judge's alloted accountability.

But, as everyone has said - the lack of details means any advice is limited.

Tony.

Edited by user 02 November 2022 08:11:55(UTC)  | Reason: Correction made.

Hi Brian - a Me Too moment!

I can see where a certain sentiment may have come from.

There are supposedly lots of people who are "at it" when it comes to making claims.

That is why there are professionals in the insurance and legal industries to manage claims.

Does mean that everyone pays a bit more for their insurances.

But occasionally the fraudsters are caught.

However, I doubt that there are anything like the number of "at it" claims relating to accidents at work as some media would like us to believe!

P

Originally Posted by: GeeKay

asks for assistance ..elements of the delivery were in excess of 15kg

Picking up a bag of sugar awkwardly can throw a back.

This 15kg only serves to indicate approporiate delivery methods should have been deployed and NOT been reliant upon the receiver except by prior agreement.

We do need more information to offer advice.

If this is a member of the public purchasing it would be unlikely to be pursued through an employer's liability insurance.

If this is is a professional purchase it may still be a sole trader or small family firm exempt from compulsory insurance.

Problem with this scenrio is when the supplier "sub-contracts" rather than controls the transport (often the case) the person in the office arranging shipment (usually based on lowest price) has never physically seen the goods being moved to understand handling requirements.