A nail gun falls within the scope of work equipment and is therefore governed by The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations. These rules, for years, have been very strict with the most prominent section of the legislation saying as follows: “ (1) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.”
So when Mr E approached our expert team here for legal representation, we were more than happy to oblige.
Our instructions were that the nail gun recoil bounce double fired which led to a nail being fired in to his thumb – a nasty injury indeed. His employer’s insurance were quick to dispute liability on the basis that our client had been fully trained in using the equipment, and on the basis that they believed there was nothing wrong with the gun itself.
But, as was clear with the circumstances, something did go wrong with the nail gun – the fact that it double bounced was evidence of this enough. The regulations at that time could impose a ‘strict liability’ on an employer which means they can be duty bound to accept fault if the equipment was defective. Given something had gone wrong with it, we were content we could show that it therefore must have been defective.
In this kind of situation many law firms would assess all the evidence and shy away from pursuing a case any further. If we lose, we don’t get paid – so there are always risks in continuing with a case where the insurers want to fight it. In the case of Mr E the insurers disclosed a lot of evidence to us, and many law firms would not be prepared to continue to fund a claim on a no win, no fee basis.
But our motto isn’t “fighting your corner” for nothing! We requested further information and documentation from the insurers and began preparations to build the case for court directions. We obtained a witness statement from Mr E and prepared medical evidence to show the extent of the injuries for the purposes of a valuation.
When the insurers failed to provide additional documentation we had reasonably requested, we applied pressure on them with a pre-action disclosure application, which is a request to the courts to force the opponent to provide such documents we deem are necessary. We won the application and the opponent insurers had to instruct solicitors to deal with the rest of the claim.
As a firm of specialist injury lawyers, we have access to the best barristers in the country. We’ve spent years building up solid relations with them so we can get their expertise and assistance fast when we need it so we instructed a barrister to assist in preparing the claim for court proceedings. Barristers are who we instruct to represent us at hearings as that’s their specialty. Having access to such quality legal assistance can be the making or breaking of a case.
Once we had all the evidence and information necessary for court, we issued court proceedings and formally served the proceedings on to the opponent. The next step is then for the court to decide what information and further evidence should be exchanged in efforts to get a case resolved without the need for a hearing.
The opponent solicitors provided us with their response to the case in which they continued their efforts to fight us. After several court directions were provided, and additional information was exchanged between us and the other side, we received an offer – likely because they realised that we were not going to stop fighting for our clients rights to compensation!
The offer was a decent offer and our client happily accepted it. In reality the insurers should have accepted liability sooner which would have saved time and costs for all involved. Ultimately it’s the insurers who pay legal fees to us, so the longer they drag it out, the more fees we incur in having to fight them.
But sometimes they try it on because their interests are to save money by stopping payouts. That’s why we’re here to fight for our clients rights to compensation!
