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!

Can I make a claim for damages - work accident?

123468

Comments

  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    Please specify the statutory provisions that you refer to.

    The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    I said nothing about pain and suffering, I questioned where the permanent disfigurement had suddenly come from.

    You do not seem able to respond to questions!

    Hot scalding soup can easily disfigure, and any person who suffers as a result has the right to make a claim, regardless of intensity. It matters not how severe, simply that the body has received a burn.
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,920 Forumite
    10,000 Posts
    T800 wrote: »
    The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

    Which section?
    T800 wrote: »
    Hot scalding soup can easily disfigure, and any person who suffers as a result has the right to make a claim, regardless of intensity. It matters not how severe, simply that the body has received a burn.

    So where do you get permanent disfigurement from?
    Gone ... or have I?
  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    Which section?

    You mean you dont know?

    s.7

    You realise that this is a discussion forum not a legal advice drop in centre?

    So whats your viewpoint then, or are you just here to ask questions.
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,920 Forumite
    10,000 Posts
    T800 wrote: »
    You mean you dont know?

    s.7

    You realise that this is a discussion forum not a legal advice drop in centre?

    So whats your viewpoint then, or are you just here to ask questions.

    I knew what you were referring to, but I also knew you were wrong. You clearly do not know the law at all. s. 7 creates criminal liability, so is of no use to the OP.

    It is always helpful to back up your argument with accurate facts, not the law according to Google. ;)
    Gone ... or have I?
  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    edited 28 June 2010 at 4:46PM
    dmg24 wrote: »
    I knew what you were referring to, but I also knew you were wrong. You clearly do not know the law at all. s. 7 creates criminal liability, so is of no use to the OP.

    It is always helpful to back up your argument with accurate facts, not the law according to Google. ;)

    Im well aware that breach of the HASAWA is embedded in criminal legislation so dont get on the high horse too fast.

    In addition, she is able to report the matter to the HSE, following the result of their investigation she could then make a claim for damages in the civil court where the burden of evidence required is even less than that for criminal matters.

    The area of law this situation comes under is negligence.
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,920 Forumite
    10,000 Posts
    T800 wrote: »
    Im well aware that breach of the HASAWA is embedded in criminal legislation so dont get on the high horse too fast.

    In addition, she is able to report the matter to the HSE, following the result of their investigation she could then make a claim for damages in the civil court where the burden of evidence required is even less than that for criminal matters.

    The area of law this situation comes under is negligence.

    Google must be very busy today, your copy and paste efforts are hilarious! Again it is clear that you do not understand, as you have made another glaring mistake above ... but then surely you know that?

    On a serious note, if you do not understand the law in a certain area, just say so. I would have happily explained the relevant provisions had you not pretended to know it all, when it is now evident that you do not know any of it.
    Gone ... or have I?
  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    Google must be very busy today, your copy and paste efforts are hilarious! Again it is clear that you do not understand, as you have made another glaring mistake above ... but then surely you know that?

    On a serious note, if you do not understand the law in a certain area, just say so. I would have happily explained the relevant provisions had you not pretended to know it all, when it is now evident that you do not know any of it.

    Im not sure I follow why you are being so nasty.

    You ask me a question that I answer correctly, (s7 deals with employee responsibilities) yet you then go on to admit that whatever way I would answer you claim I am wrong. Why ask in the first place? Is it trolling? You then tell me that it is criminally related legislation, which im already aware of, so im a bit skeptical about what it is you can possibly claim to teach us here what we dont already know?
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,920 Forumite
    10,000 Posts
    T800 wrote: »
    Im not sure I follow why you are being so nasty.

    You ask me a question that I answer correctly, (s7 deals with employee responsibilities) yet you then go on to admit that whatever way I would answer you claim I am wrong. Why ask in the first place? Is it trolling? You then tell me that it is criminally related legislation, which im already aware of, so im a bit skeptical about what it is you can possibly claim to teach us here what we dont already know?

    You stated that the OP could sue by virtue of H&S law, you then quoted a provision under which you said she could take action. This provision created criminal liability only. I can't see any way in which that could be correct?

    I am also not sure who 'us' refers to, unless there are several of you sat at your keyboard?

    There is nothing nasty in telling someone they are wrong. In fact now that your information has been proven inaccurate, the OP will know not to pursue such a course of action (though she may still have a course of action under personal injury law or other H&S measures).

    If you need something clarifying, it is always best to ask. It does not help anyone to give out incorrect information.
    Gone ... or have I?
  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    dmg24 wrote: »
    You stated that the OP could sue by virtue of H&S law, you then quoted a provision under which you said she could take action. This provision created criminal liability only. I can't see any way in which that could be correct?

    What you claim I said (What I highlighted) is simply not correct and you have clearly misunderstood.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.