Hairdressing injury claim?

Money_User

dpassmore wrote: »

ALL accidents are avoidable

Amazing how the blame claim types have forgotten what the definition of an accident actually is.

ac·ci·dent/ˈaksidənt/Noun
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.

squeaky

Money_User wrote: »

ac·ci·dent/ˈaksidənt/Noun
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.

Pooh says it best...

Sometimes a boat is a boat and sometimes it's more of an accident.
It depends on whether you're on top of it or underneath it. [Pooh]

geri1965_2

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Nowhere, but most of the people that tout for the 'injured' people seeking ambulance chasing lawyers are sales people and not the lawyers themselves

I am neither. I'm actually a loss adjuster who deals with personal injury claims made against insurance companies - so the opposite of an ambulance chaser, in fact.

Working in this line of business however means that you see many, many people genuinely injured as a result of other people's negligence, sometimes horrifically. I am of the view that genuine people should be compensated, but those that are trying it on should be strongly resisted.

ANGELB

Thank you for your advice folks. My eye is much better than yesterday. Still hurts when closing but think this maybe to the vigorous irrigation the nurse did! I'm not a 'Were there's blame there's a claim' hunter. I think next time I'll wear my sunglasses or goggles. If the damage had been worse then maybe I would have thought differently. Thank you again for your advice.

shaun_from_Africa

ALL accidents are avoidable and where there is a weak link in any of the above, an accident can occur

Totally incorrect.
It is possible to minimise the risk of an accident occuring, but it is totally impossible to prevent all accidents.

A person with perfect health, no previous medical problems and no symptoms can have a stroke or aneurism, and if driving a vehicle could well have a totally unavoidable accident.

A meteorite can land on you or your house, and it may be of such a size that it was impossible to detect, hence impossible to avoid.

Two totally different scenarios, (and without a doubt, there are dozens, if not hundreds more), but both accidents which may well have been impossible to void occuring.

ellay864

Surely regardless of definitions etc of accidents, the hairdresser would have public liability insurance which is what the OP would be claiming against. That insurance helps protect a company if an accident occurs on their premises to their clients. They'll recognise that genuine accidents can happen, even if the company has taken steps to avoid them, thats what the company pays insurance premiums for

gregg1

dmg24 wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to the day when the govt makes ambulance chasers like you unlawful! Shameful.

OP, it was an accident, how do you think the hairdresser could have prevented it?

By being more bloody careful!!

dickydonkin

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Totally incorrect.
It is possible to minimise the risk of an accident occuring, but it is totally impossible to prevent all accidents.

A person with perfect health, no previous medical problems and no symptoms can have a stroke or aneurism, and if driving a vehicle could well have a totally unavoidable accident.

A meteorite can land on you or your house, and it may be of such a size that it was impossible to detect, hence impossible to avoid.

Two totally different scenarios, (and without a doubt, there are dozens, if not hundreds more), but both accidents which may well have been impossible to void occuring.

As for meteorites - that sounds like desperation to get make your point. You may as well have included earthquakes, tsunami's, tornado's, etc. - these are defined as 'acts of God' by most insurers and to include such examples is ridiculous - and incidentally, they are not 'accidents' but natural events/disasters.

The current Earthquake/Tsunami situation in Japan did actually result in an 'acccident' at the Fukishima plant, but you have to ask why such a facility was allowed to be constructed on one of the most unstable and volotile faults in the earths crust. The earthquake and subsequent Tsunami was not preventable, but the Fukishima situation certainly was - it should never have been built there!

As for the car analogy, someone dropping dead at the steering wheel is not a human failure - well medically yes, but behavioural - no - bearing in mind that the majority of accidents are indeed caused by human behavioural issues, but perhaps I should have stated that all accidents involving living/conscious people are avoidable!

Which they are!

shaun_from_Africa

but perhaps I should have stated that all accidents involving living/conscious people are avoidable!

Which they are!

Do you mean like sneezing when driving a car which may result in an accident, or getting an eyelash in your eye which causes you to blink and hence miss seeing someone or something, etc etc.

Yes, if you put someone in a chemically induced coma then you may possibly be able to prevent them having an accident, but only as long as no one else ever has to interact with them.
You can minimise the chances of having accidents, but I still say that claiming that all accidents is wrong (even if they only involve "living/conscious people".

dickydonkin

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Do you mean like sneezing when driving a car which may result in an accident, or getting an eyelash in your eye which causes you to blink and hence miss seeing someone or something, etc etc.

Yes, if you put someone in a chemically induced coma then you may possibly be able to prevent them having an accident, but only as long as no one else ever has to interact with them.
You can minimise the chances of having accidents, but I still say that claiming that all accidents is wrong (even if they only involve "living/conscious people".

Sneeezing and eylashes contaminating the eye when driving, meteorites falling on your head, dropping dead at the wheel, chemically induced comas (we are really scraping the depths here) are NOT behavioural or human factors as I was explaining in my earlier post.

Why not go to more extremes and suggest that someone who spontaneously combusts when they are driving will also cause an accident as well. If you want a sensible debate then at least provide some sensible examples for your argument.

However, despite sneezing and eye contamination not being 'human or behavioural factors' as such, they can (and do) create a distraction which in turn can result in an error which may result in an accident.

As for accidents in the workplace, I have investigated many - some trivial and relatively minor and some serious ones as well.

I can state in all honesty that every one of those was avoidable.

As we are drifting off topic, lets go back to the OP's situation - briefly.....

The employer should have undertaken a risk assessment and following that assessment a safe system of work to apply chemicals to a customers hair should have been devised and implemented.

The employee should have been provided with relevant information about the chemical (including its properties and use) how to prepare and apply it and also how to protect the user and the recipient of the substance.

By virtue of the OP becoming injured, there had obviously been a failure on one or more of the above points - more than likely a failure to adhere to a safe system of work - which is a human failure, or if there was no RA/safe system of work, no training, no supervision or a poor safety culture, then they are organisational failures.

The hairdresser likely caused the injury by error.

An error is defined (in H&S) as a slip, (not the loss of footing type), a lapse or a mistake.

Why did the error occur?

Without going into great detail, job, individual and organisational factors all need to be considered on determining an underlying cause of an accident and without actually investigating what procedures, policies and training was in place, it would not be wise to speculate as to what the underlying cause of the accident was - but there will be one.

By posting this:

Yes, if you put someone in a chemically induced coma then you may possibly be able to prevent them having an accident, but only as long as no one else ever has to interact with them.

You have unwittingly confirmed the whole point I am trying to make - remove the human element - you avoid the accident!

Let's agree to disagree as it is blatanly apparent I am not going to convince you.