We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Accident at work
john59_2
Posts: 67 Forumite
This is a bit hit and miss, but a lad at work has stepped off a ladder and didnt realise he was on the 4th rung up and has damaged the ligaments in his ankle. Now you are probebly thinking "what an idiot" and he himself thinks the same but he has now been off work for 5 weeks and his argument or point is that he was sent to the job (a contract with another company) who always insisted that no ladders were to be used on site no matter what. His boss knew this but sent him and his work mate to finish the job (spraying paint from a rattle can) so the job could be signed off because the job had over the weeks taken too long due to no blame to the lads.
Now I know that the lad has no training using ladders and on every other visit, scaffolding or scissor lifts were used and on the day of the accident the site manager who is also the site first aider said " YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON A LADDER AND DONT EVEN THINK OF A CLAIM"
Now this lad is thinking of putting in a claim for personal injury, he has told me hes not bothered about compen but would like to know if he could at least claim for loss of earnings.
Now I know that the lad has no training using ladders and on every other visit, scaffolding or scissor lifts were used and on the day of the accident the site manager who is also the site first aider said " YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON A LADDER AND DONT EVEN THINK OF A CLAIM"
Now this lad is thinking of putting in a claim for personal injury, he has told me hes not bothered about compen but would like to know if he could at least claim for loss of earnings.
0
Comments
-
People feel they need training to work out that stepping backwards off the 4th rung of a ladder may be problematic? Thankyou for beautifully encapsulating all that is wrong with our society today....
I feel sorry for they guy in question as we have all done stupid things (and hopefully learned from them) but why does peoples stupidity always have to be someone elses fault these days?
Sorry to sound harsh but I hate this sort of stuff - The ripple effects of such litigious behaviour damages society far more than many people realise.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
People feel they need training to work out that stepping backwards off the 4th rung of a ladder may be problematic? Thankyou for beautifully encapsulating all that is wrong with our society today....
I feel sorry for they guy in question as we have all done stupid things (and hopefully learned from them) but why does peoples stupidity always have to be someone elses fault these days?
Sorry to sound harsh but I hate this sort of stuff - The ripple effects of such litigious behaviour damages society far more than many people realise.
And people who are sent up ladders without training damages people - also far more and often than people realise.
First, lets dispel one myth that is often bantered about - ladders are an acceptable means of height access (provided other equipment is unsuitable or inappropriate for the task) and ladders have not been banned as many people seem to think.
Unfortunately for lads employers, it was apparent that safer equipment was suitable for accessing height as the other (arguably more reputable) contractors provided cherry pickers/scissor lifts for the same task.
Unfortunately, his employer (most likely due to costs) decided to use ladders as the cheaper option - although if the lad puts in a claim, by the time the employers liability insurance premiums go up - it may turn out to be false economy.
I am not suggesting people need to be told not to step back off the fourth rung, but appropriate training would have ensured that the person using the ladder would have been informed how to descend from a ladder appropriately and if the ladder had been 'footed' by a colleague (which is normal practice) the 'footer' could have probably stopped him falling back.
I can give you examples of "stupid things" what people have done at work such as walking across roofs and they have fallen through with fatal consequenses.
The reality is that the injured persons company were potentially negligent by sending an untrained person up a ladder which breaches the Working at Height Regulations, and all working at height needs to be risk assessed - if that has not been done, then that is another breach.
Hopefully, the employer has also reported this accident to the HSE under RIDDOR regulations as the employee has been off work for more than three days.
No - what beautifully encapsulates all what is wrong with many employers today is that they will happily disregard legislation that is in place to protect people at work and will then moan when an injured employee submits a claim for a workplace injury.on the day of the accident the site manager who is also the site first aider said " YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON A LADDER AND DONT EVEN THINK OF A CLAIM"
As the site manager will be responsible for the health and safety on the site, the reality is that he should not have allowed work on the ladder to commence. The counter argument of telling the lad "YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON A LADDER" is that THE SITE MANAGER ALSO KNEW HE SHOULD NOT BE ON A LADDER - BUT HE ALLOWED IT!
I suspect the site manager was more concerned about his own &r$e than the injured employee.0 -
And people who are sent up ladders without training damages people - also far more and often than people realise.
First, lets dispel one myth that is often bantered about - ladders are an acceptable means of height access (provided other equipment is unsuitable or inappropriate for the task) and ladders have not been banned as many people seem to think.
Unfortunately for lads employers, it was apparent that safer equipment was suitable for accessing height as the other (arguably more reputable) contractors provided cherry pickers/scissor lifts for the same task.
Unfortunately, his employer (most likely due to costs) decided to use ladders as the cheaper option - although if the lad puts in a claim, by the time the employers liability insurance premiums go up - it may turn out to be false economy.
I am not suggesting people need to be told not to step back off the fourth rung, but appropriate training would have ensured that the person using the ladder would have been informed how to descend from a ladder appropriately and if the ladder had been 'footed' by a colleague (which is normal practice) the 'footer' could have probably stopped him falling back.
I can give you examples of "stupid things" what people have done at work such as walking across roofs and they have fallen through with fatal consequenses.
The reality is that the injured persons company were potentially negligent by sending an untrained person up a ladder which breaches the Working at Height Regulations, and all working at height needs to be risk assessed - if that has not been done, then that is another breach.
Hopefully, the employer has also reported this accident to the HSE under RIDDOR regulations as the employee has been off work for more than three days.
No - what beautifully encapsulates all what is wrong with many employers today is that they will happily disregard legislation that is in place to protect people at work and will then moan when an injured employee submits a claim for a workplace injury.
As the site manager will be responsible for the health and safety on the site, the reality is that he should not have allowed work on the ladder to commence. The counter argument of telling the lad "YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON A LADDER" is that THE SITE MANAGER ALSO KNEW HE SHOULD NOT BE ON A LADDER - BUT HE ALLOWED IT!
I suspect the site manager was more concerned about his own &r$e than the injured employee.
!!!!!! its a blooming ladder! What kind of idiots need formal training to go up or come down one? Having someone at the bottom is so obvious it hurts...Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
!!!!!! its a blooming ladder! What kind of idiots need formal training to go up or come down one? Having someone at the bottom is so obvious it hurts...
Maybe the 1,200 'idiots' here!
Unbelievable comments - it is not just the ascending and descending that requires training, but when to use them, how to use them, when not to use them, how to inspect them - I can go on.
Those 'blooming' ladders have caused numerous deaths and serious injuries over the years and the figures quoted in the link do not include the hundreds of other 'idiots' who do their own DIY at home who are either killed or injured by 'simply' climbing up or down a ladder.
Here are some more 'idiots' - example 1 in particular.
I suspect the widows and families of the seriously injured would not take to kindly that their loved ones are deemed as idiots because they fell from a ladder.
I have given working at height presentations to people with similar attitudes, but the statistics and case studies certainly made them rethink.0 -
Maybe the 1,200 'idiots' here!
Unbelievable comments - it is not just the ascending and descending that requires training, but when to use them, how to use them, when not to use them, how to inspect them - I can go on.
Those 'blooming' ladders have caused numerous deaths and serious injuries over the years and the figures quoted in the link do not include the hundreds of other 'idiots' who do their own DIY at home who are either killed or injured by 'simply' climbing up or down a ladder.
Here are some more 'idiots' - example 1 in particular.
I suspect the widows and families of the seriously injured would not take to kindly that their loved ones are deemed as idiots because they fell from a ladder.
I have given working at height presentations to people with similar attitudes, but the statistics and case studies certainly made them rethink.
Whatever mate - I believe I was making the general point that people need to take more responsibility for their own actions and not assume there is automatically someone else at fault and that they can sue when they make an error. Sorry if it offends but I think the effects of such an attitude when widespread is damaging to society. Waving websites of workplace fatalities at me doesn't change my mind here on a generic level - tragic though they may be.
I bow to your knowledge of workplace regulations but you appear to think that you can 'elf and safety' all the risk in the world away via a clipboard and an officious manner - I'm afraid that's not the case nor will it ever be.
I'll leave you to your ladder inspections....mind how you go.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
"I believe I was making the general point that people need to take more responsibility for their own actions and not assume there is automatically someone else at fault and that they can sue when they make an error."
I think you will find that it was the company that made the error, the lad simply thought he was on the bottom rung and stepped back, but Whatever mate, you are obliged your opinion I suppose.
He as now got the draft protocol letter from his solicitor
He has recieved the Draft Protocol letter as follows.
Failed to provide a safe system of work and failed to take any adequate care for the safety of our client.
Failed to make a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the work carried out by our client contrary to Regulation 3 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 or alternatively failed to take account of such an assessment to identify the required control measures contrary to Regulation6(1) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to ensure that the work carried out by our client was properly planned contrary to Regulation 4(1)(a) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to carry out the work at a height in a manner which was safe contrary to Regulation 4(1)(c) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to take suitable and sufficient measure to prevent our client falling a distance liable to cause personal injury contrary to Regulation 6(3) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to select work equipment for the above work which was appropriate to the nature of the work or suitable contrary to Regulation 7(1) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Instructed, caused or permitted our client to perform the work when you knew or ought reasonably to have foreseen that at least one other man was required to assist our client to perform his work in a safe manner.
Permitted or suffered the use of ladders as a means of access to the place at which our client was working when you knew or ought to have known that ladders were forbidden.
He has given me permission to reproduce the above as so long as there are no names mentioned.0 -
"I believe I was making the general point that people need to take more responsibility for their own actions and not assume there is automatically someone else at fault and that they can sue when they make an error."
I think you will find that it was the company that made the error, the lad simply thought he was on the bottom rung and stepped back, but Whatever mate, you are obliged your opinion I suppose.
He as now got the draft protocol letter from his solicitor
He has recieved the Draft Protocol letter as follows.
Failed to provide a safe system of work and failed to take any adequate care for the safety of our client.
Failed to make a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the work carried out by our client contrary to Regulation 3 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 or alternatively failed to take account of such an assessment to identify the required control measures contrary to Regulation6(1) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to ensure that the work carried out by our client was properly planned contrary to Regulation 4(1)(a) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to carry out the work at a height in a manner which was safe contrary to Regulation 4(1)(c) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to take suitable and sufficient measure to prevent our client falling a distance liable to cause personal injury contrary to Regulation 6(3) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Failed to select work equipment for the above work which was appropriate to the nature of the work or suitable contrary to Regulation 7(1) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Instructed, caused or permitted our client to perform the work when you knew or ought reasonably to have foreseen that at least one other man was required to assist our client to perform his work in a safe manner.
Permitted or suffered the use of ladders as a means of access to the place at which our client was working when you knew or ought to have known that ladders were forbidden.
He has given me permission to reproduce the above as so long as there are no names mentioned.
Indeed I am - Such is life.
Good luck with the case.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Having done the same thing myself (ok - I was decorating and could hardly sue myself) - it's not as daft a thing as it sounds at all. But I agree here. We are currently representing a young lad who was placed, with another young lad, working on a roof, without adequate training or any supervision from a trained person (who has having his cup of tea). The lad tripped and fell backwards through a window, falling 12 ft. Although injured he was extremely lucky - it was relatively minor and he will make a full recovery. Said employer sacked him for having time off sick, due to the injury. After a week. On SSP.
Said lad was not even going to make a claim. He changed his mind after being sacked. Employers who play fast and loose with safety deserve what they get.0 -
Whatever mate - I believe I was making the general point that people need to take more responsibility for their own actions and not assume there is automatically someone else at fault and that they can sue when they make an error. Sorry if it offends but I think the effects of such an attitude when widespread is damaging to society. Waving websites of workplace fatalities at me doesn't change my mind here on a generic level - tragic though they may be.
I bow to your knowledge of workplace regulations but you appear to think that you can 'elf and safety' all the risk in the world away via a clipboard and an officious manner - I'm afraid that's not the case nor will it ever be.
I'll leave you to your ladder inspections....mind how you go.
Well, it is the user who should inspect the ladder prior to use actually - I just ensure that the person, equipment and environment are compatable for safe working at height and everything is compliant to relevant regulations and if you want to take the pi$$ out of me for doing that, well that's your prerogative.
And they say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...never mind, I will not rise to it - lets just hope none of your family or friends are victims of an employer's disregard to their employees safety.
I have re-read my previous post and I cannot find any reference suggesting I can 'elf and safety' all the risks in the world away, but what I try to do is reduce them to an acceptable level where I cannot eliminate them - occasionally with the assistance of a clipboard oddly enough (just to keep up the stereo-type you understand - oh - and don't forget the hi-viz jacket)
Without boring everyone, there is an established heirarchy of control measures and risk assessments and a subsequent safe system of work needs to be established as part of that - assuming elimination of the risk cannot be totally implemented.
EVERY accident has an immediate and underlying cause and on this case, it would seem the immediate cause was a misperception by the lad who was using the ladder, however, without knowing the full details (which an accident report should establish), it is probable that lack of training, supervision, risk assessment and the use of inappropriate equipment were contributory underlying factors to the incident.
Unfortunately, when working at height, any accident can result in life changing injuries or worse.
Pete111 As you can see from the OP's friends solicitors letter, it is vital that employers ensure that work at height is planned and undertaken safely - failing to do so can be costly for them although not as costly for the poor souls and their families who are victims of poor working practices and desregard to legislation.0 -
And they say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...never mind, I will not rise to it - lets just hope none of your family or friends are victims of employer's disregard to their employees safety.
I have never suggested that you can 'elf and safety' all the risks in the world away, but what can be done is reducing them to an acceptable level - occasionally with the assistance of a clipboard oddly enough (just to keep up the stereo-type you understand - oh and the hi-viz jacket)
Without boring everyone, there is an established heirarchy of control measures and risk assessments and a subsequent safe system of work needs to be established as part of that - assuming elimination of the risk cannot be totally implemented.
EVERY accident has an immediate and underlying cause and on this case, it would seem the immediate cause was a misperception by the lad who was using the ladder, however, without knowing the full details (which an accident report should establish), it is probable that lack of training, supervision, risk assessment and the use of inappropriate equipment were contributory underlying factors to the incident.
Unfortunately, when working at height, any accident can result in life changing injuries or worse.
Pete111 As you can see from the OP's solicitors letter, it is vital that employers ensure that work at height is planned and undertaken safely - failing to do so can be costly for them although not as costly for the poor souls and their families who are victims of poor working practices and desregard to legislation.
I agree. Or to put it in another way. Employers are far from not being being aware that we do, whether we like it or not, live in a world where people sue at the drop of a hat. Whilst I get some of the point about what Pete111 is saying here, and I don't altogether have a lot of sympathy with the "I got my stilletto jammed in the crack of some perfectly laid paving stones and want to sue" brigade, employers know that this is the case. So the best protection is to ensure that you apply all appropraite health and safety training and risk assessment, that you maintain and check equipment and ensure that work is supervised. There certainly is such a thing as a genuine accident at work - nobody's fault, just an accident. And the way you prove that to be the case is to cover your back on all the procedures. A sensible employer isn't playing fast and loose with peoples safety - or their own bank balance.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.6K Spending & Discounts
- 247.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards