Workplace accident claim
The case if Vaile v Havering London Borough Council is case is a good example of a workplace accident claim. The decision is based on the law of negligence.
Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care for those who may be affected by your action or inaction, which causes loss and injury. Remember the law only demands reasonable care, which is a mile from a guarantee of safety. An employer should stop and think about what it asks of its employees. A description of the case will help you learn more about accidents and injury at work. Continue reading “Employers’ liability for personal injury at work”
Personal Injury at Work
How to avoid accidents and injury at work
I started my career as a personal injury solicitor working for those who suffered personal injury at work. What is striking is that although the law has been changed to make the workplace safer, attitudes have not altered.
A company is a financial vehicle designed to produce profit. That aim which we all understand clashes with the need to have a completely safe workplace and avoid workplace accidents. That balance is dealt with by the use of reasonable or reasonably practicable in the various laws which apply. Let us explain how the law deals with this difficult balance for those who suffer personal injury at work. Continue reading “Personal Injury accident at Work”
Workplace accident claim
Workplace accidents are avoidable which means accidents at work should not happen. Compensation can be claimed for the consequences of a workplace accident.
The workplace must be risk assessed to avoid accidents and injury at work. If a proper assessment is carried out why do accidents still happen.
If you would like to discuss an accident at work please contact us for a chat without obligation.
For more information please read on. Continue reading “Workplace accident claim”
Explanation of employer’s duty to prevent risks and protect by use of personal protective equipment – gloves in this example.
Preventing accidents and injury at work
I have explained in other articles how the law looks at prevention of accidents and injury at work. Some years ago lawyers acting for Claimants had to try to prove an employer should have been aware of a hazard, and should have protected its employees. The law used the benefit of hindsight to see how an accident or injury at work could have been avoided.
Much of the law is now based on regulations which impose a duty to risk assess before a task is undertaken. Prevention rather than cure seems to make sense. It is this process of risk assessment which has got a bad name by those who shout about the claims culture.
What is wrong with demanding that a job be properly assessed before asking an employee to do it? Employees are not guinea pigs testing a work process to see what might go wrong. Continue reading “Identifying risk of injury to employees – protective equipment”
Safety when working at height
Historically most personal injury cases were based in the law of negligence. Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care to avoid likely injury. Over recent years health and safety regulations have been brought into effect. These are European regulations which become part of our law.
The difference between negligence and these regulations is that rather than a rather vague law of carelessness, we now have a very specific set of regulations. A good example is the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
The Regulation starts by saying you should avoid work at height. Avoid the hazard in the first place is the starting point. You must then assess the safe way to undertake a task, that assessment must be undertaken by a properly qualified person, and all involved in the work must be trained. Health and Safety is sometimes seen as a joke, probably by those who do not work at height.
A recent case in the Court of Appeal is a good illustration of the Work at Height Regulations in operation. Continue reading “Work at Height Regulations 2005”