Accident at work

john59_2

He would be aware if it has been reported as he would receive a copy of form 2508 that should have been submitted by the employer.

If I read that correctly, the lad should have recieved this form?

Googlewhacker

john59 wrote: »

He would be aware if it has been reported as he would receive a copy of form 2508 that should have been submitted by the employer.

If I read that correctly, the lad should have recieved this form?

If the company have done it then yes

john59_2

The only thing the lad has recieved from his employer are his wage slips stating his SSP payments, Should he contact his employer asking for the form or should he contact his solicitor and make them aware of this form.

Thank you guys

dickydonkin

john59 wrote: »

The only thing the lad has recieved from his employer are his wage slips stating his SSP payments, Should he contact his employer asking for the form or should he contact his solicitor and make them aware of this form.

Thank you guys

I suspect that his solicitor will be aware of RIDDOR , but as the claim against the employer is a civil one, it is arguable that by not submitting the form, it is not relevant to the claim.

I stand to be corrected on that point though.

However, by asking his employer if the accident/injury has been reported and it transpires that it hasn't, it may just change the mindset of the employer as he may then be a little concerned and may wish to 'resolve' the matter without further legal costs and the potential ramifications of not complying with UK legislation.

heretolearn_2

I'm pretty disgusted by this. Yes, an employer should try to ensure good safety procedures. Probably some sort of 'ladder training' should have been provided re angle of ladder/securer footing etc.

But how would any of that have stopped some twerp stepping off too early? It wouldn't. The accident was the man's fault.

And why are you calling him a 'young lad' and 'lad' all the time. That makes him sound about 16 - and then gets a bit more sympathy as 16 year olds do act like twerps and I don't think an employer is acting responsibly sending two unsupervised up ladders. But later you say he has a mortgage....how many 'young lads' or teenagers have mortgages? This was a grown adult for goodness sake, not a little boy. You only get to call anyone over the age of 20 a 'lad' if you are about 90 years old yourself. How old is this 'lad' exactly? 25? 30? A grown adult shouldn't go blaming others if he steps off the fourth rung of a ladder. :rotfl:

dickydonkin

Yes, an employer should try to ensure good safety procedures. Probably some sort of 'ladder training' should have been provided re angle of ladder/securer footing etc.

You have really answered your own questions there.

The reality is that by having suitably trained personnel and someone footing the ladder talking him down, this accident would likely have been avoided.

However, you have missed the whole point of this completely.

When you work at height, ALL such work has to be risk assessed and in particular, deciding what type of equipment to use for the job. Now the OP has clearly indicated that other contractors doing the same task were provided much safer access equipment to do the job as they had obviously decided that ladders were unsuitable for the task.

THE OP's friend's employer for whatever reason, decided to take the cheaper and more riskier option of using a ladder to do the job which may turn out to be the most expensive method.

Of course I accept that even when all safety procedures have been carried out, as long as the human factor enters the equation, there is always a possibility of something going wrong.

However, it is the duty of the employer to avoid, prevent and mitigate the consequenses of when something does go wrong and if all reasonable measures have been carried out, it becomes more difficult to pursue a claim of negligence against an employer.

It seems blatantly obvious in this case that the employer has been found somewhat lacking in all of the above.

I'm pretty disgusted by this.

What - at someone getting injured at work because of an employers negligence or the fact he the injured person is attempting to claim back losses incurred because of the negligence - or both?

But how would any of that have stopped some twerp stepping off too early? It wouldn't. The accident was the man's fault.

What would have stopped the 'twerp' (as you so called the injured person) would be the employer providing suitable access equipment for the job - and the accident was NOT the mans/lads/twerps fault - his compensation cheque will verify that.

If I had to write out an accident report based on what has been posted, when it came to the immediate and underlying causes of the accident, I am afraid the evidence against the employer would be pretty damning. And as for the rant about the age of the injured employee, accidents can happen to anybody at any age and pain feels the same if you're 9 or 90.

heretolearn_2

Yes, I'm sure that legally the employer might be in trouble; but on a personal level I still think it's ridiculous for a grown man to complain because he jumped off the fourth rung of a ladder. People have a responsibility not to do stupid things that get them hurt.

SarEl

heretolearn wrote: »

I'm pretty disgusted by this. Yes, an employer should try to ensure good safety procedures. Probably some sort of 'ladder training' should have been provided re angle of ladder/securer footing etc. Not probably - definitely. That's what H&S regulations require.

But how would any of that have stopped some twerp stepping off too early? It wouldn't. The accident was the man's fault. Not if the training wasn't provided - at the very least it is a mutual fault

And why are you calling him a 'young lad' and 'lad' all the time. That makes him sound about 16 - and then gets a bit more sympathy as 16 year olds do act like twerps and I don't think an employer is acting responsibly sending two unsupervised up ladders. But later you say he has a mortgage....how many 'young lads' or teenagers have mortgages? This was a grown adult for goodness sake, not a little boy. You only get to call anyone over the age of 20 a 'lad' if you are about 90 years old yourself. How old is this 'lad' exactly? 25? 30? A grown adult shouldn't go blaming others if he steps off the fourth rung of a ladder. :rotfl:

Obviously you don't spend a lot of time "up North" - lad and lass are commonplace for any age!

dickydonkin

heretolearn wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure that legally the employer might be in trouble; but on a personal level I still think it's ridiculous for a grown man to complain because he jumped off the fourth rung of a ladder. People have a responsibility not to do stupid things that get them hurt.

I understand what you are saying and indeed many people will think the same, but the fact is that nobody goes to work to deliberately injure themselves and as I stated in an earlier post, the person stepping off the ladder was not stupid or a twerp - he was just a human being.

We have all made mistakes at work.

Is someone who drops a load of files at their desk stupid?

When someone knocks over a cup of coffee on their workdesk are they deemed as stupid?

The answer to both is obviously no - they are not stupid.

Mistakes, errors, misperceptions etc. are the causes of many accidents and that can be at work, on the road when driving or doing jobs around the house and when something goes wrong, there is a cause and although many result in little or no injury or damage, unfortunately, some do.

So someone spills a cup of coffee on an office laptop and someone steps off the fourth rung of a ladder - who is the most stupid?

Nobody is stupid of course - but both could have been prevented by anticipating and foreseeing the consequenses of human failings.

The former could be avoided by not allowing liquids to be drunk around office desks as there will always be a risk of spillages.

The latter could have been avoided by using a more safer form of access equipment as there will always be a risk of working at height from a ladder.

I fully understand that on the face of it, it may seem a silly acident to many and misjudging the fourth rung of a ladder will normally not result in anything more than hurt pride, however (thankfully) although the person was injured, it was not the fourteenth rung that was misjudged - but it could have been and the injured person could have lost more than a few weeks wages.

This guidance provides information on human factors in accidents in the workplace.

EDIT

UNBELIEVEABLE - WHY DON'T I PRACTICE WHAT I PREACH.

Just brought in a cup of coffee from the kitchen and I have knocked over the FULL cup onto the table next to my laptop - fortunately missing it by inches. Mrs P will be delighted when she sees the state of the tablecloth!

God what a [STRIKE]fool[/STRIKE] - sorry, human being I am!

john59_2

I dont want to get bogged down into an argument or the fact that what he did was daft, he said that right at the beggining and feels stupid. Ok he is not a lad but a 40+ responsible male, but that is niether here nor there. He simply stepped off the ladder convinced he was on the bottom rung ( the idiot)....his words, not mine.


He was actualy telling me over the weekend that this small company has been very very lucky regarding workplace accidents in the past, not lucky for the employees but that fact that no body has claimed for injury of any discription so my take on this is that management have become a bit blase. (how do you put the accent over the e)