100% compensation for workplace claims – click here for more!
We take on a lot of workplace accident claims and we’re often astonished at some of the circumstances employees are injured in. Health and safety is significantly stringent in the UK, and whilst many workplaces can boast of good records when it comes to keeping accidents down, there are times when things happen that could have easily been avoided.
So here’s a story from the Matlock Mercury (source) about a local woman in chesterfield who is suing her employer, the Co-op, after she was told to put herself in danger in the workplace.
The victim, a 34 year old mother of two and deputy manager of a Co-op store in Chesterfield, was told to put her hand inside the air conditioning unit of a broken down refrigerator to repair it. Unfortunately her right hand was significantly damaged by spinning fan blades inside the unit that has resulted in a great deal of significant and permanent damage.
According to the press report, the blades sliced through bone and tendons resulting in her needing complicated microsurgery to try and restore as much function as possible to the severely damaged hand. But sadly, as is the case with many operations of a complex nature like this, the procedure wasn’t entirely successful and she has been left with permanent dexterity and mobility problems in her hand.
In this scenario, its seems clear that the Co-op are 100% liable to compensate her for the injuries and losses sustained in my opinion, but the representatives for her employer are arguing she is partially at fault. Whilst we don’t have all of the details of the case itself (which makes it hard to judge properly), it isn’t surprising – the opponents will often raise arguments of what we call ‘contributory negligence’ which means the victim may face a reduced payout on a percentage basis for being partially at fault for an accident or injuries.
Classic examples where an argument might like this can be held are in road accidents were a person in a vehicle fails to wear a seatbelt or where a cyclist fails to wear a helmet. But in this case their argument isn’t clear from the reports; but it isn’t surprising as I said earlier.
Why is this? Well, let me tell you from years of experience working for a law firm dealing with serious injury cases that the reason is normally down to the opponent trying to save themselves some money! If they successfully argue contributory negligence, the victim’s payout is normally reduced by a percentage, and given that this is a serious and lifelong injury, the value of the claim is likely to be high. So if the opponent can save themselves potentially thousands of pounds, they will try it on.
It doesn’t seem fair, and when you look at the basics of this example from the way the report describes it, it seems nonsensical to argue that she is partially at fault if that’s what she was instructed to do. But as I say, the opponents will try it on – so it’s important to get a specialist lawyer in a case like this to properly argue your case for you and maximise the payout!
