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!
Where would you legally stand after being hit at work?
Comments
-
You tell me that the employer only has to pay SSP & that's the end of it.
We had a guy who had his arm crushed at work due to another workers negligence & ended up not being able to work there again & compensation between 30k - 50k depending on which rumour you believe.
If all they have to do is pay up SSP & that's the end of it, why would they have had to pay this guy out then?
Sick pay is exactly that: pay for the days that you are off sick, if you qualify for SSP. If the customer had run over your foot, that's not your employer's fault, and you would also have to take some of the liability for not moving beforehand.
Compensation is different, it's to compensate for a loss. In the second case the accident was caused by an employee at work. The injured employee can never work again. He claimed for future loss of earnings, and won. Quite rightly, by the sounds of it.
The two cases are completely different.Oh for God's sake give it up. "What if's... " are irrelevant. What if a flying saucer scooped you up in the nick of time - are your employers responsible for your alien abduction?
You've been watching 'Requiem' again, haven't you?
KiKi' <-- See that? It's called an apostrophe. It does not mean "hey, look out, here comes an S".0 -
What would have happened had you been injured?
"Mr. Bev, can you explain to us why you just stood there whilst they drove towards you and you didn't move out of the way?"
Claim declined.
Personally, if you were working for me I would sack you. I wouldn't want such an obvious halfwit working for me. Stupid costs money.0 -
Seems to me the only negligent party here was the OP.
Many H&S pieces of legislation have been mentioned here - except section 7 of the HASWA that places a duty on the employee to take reasonable care of himself and others.
It does seem that workplace transport is an issue, but stupidity and poor health and safety management is a recipe for disaster.Basically if you could prove the employer was negligent you could sue them but their liability is going to be hard to prove as you were wearing a hi viz vest
Unfortunately that is not the case.
Personal Protective Equipment is the last line of defence in controlling risks and other controls should be implemented and risks eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level before considering PPE.
The hazard has already reached the person if PPE is the final control measure.
If it was deemed reasonable to reduce risks from the top of the control heirarchy and this was not done and PPE was the only control measure implemented, then the employer could potentially be deemed negligent.
It is always better to stop things falling on workers heads rather than just allowing things to fall and provide the workers with head protection.
Collective controls ensure everyone is protected - PPE only protects the individual - assuming it is worn correctly (if at all) or suitable for the risks present.0 -
What would have happened had you been injured?
"Mr. Bev, can you explain to us why you just stood there whilst they drove towards you and you didn't move out of the way?"
Claim declined.
Personally, if you were working for me I would sack you. I wouldn't want such an obvious halfwit working for me. Stupid costs money.
Many H&S issues comes down to simple common sense things like this.
It was just an old-fashioned stand off between two people.
The car driver was probably initially in the wrong, but the OP did not need to take any action and should have treated him as the fool he was and not have provoked him.
Maybe there was a problem with traffic on this site, but provoking customers is not the way to deal with it.0 -
Yes there are speed limits. They are never ever stuck to. We have customers who must be hitting 30-40mph as they zip into the yard. The limit is 5mph.
Did the customer have permission to be where they were? No. They just drove there.
Were they in a driving or pedestrian zone? This is iffy as the boundaries aren't clear at all. It's just "accepted" that customers & staff can go wherever they like, except for the areas which have bollards that physically stop cars going down.
Technically, you should check in with the first line of the yard which is the chap on the entrance, but not many customers do this & it's not something that is policed at all, nevermind very well. QUOTE]
OK. If I were you, I would put in a health and safety card( or however your company deal with H&S.) There are clearly points here which need addressing. This may result in constraints on you as well as the customer but if there are potential dangers they need addressed.
Of course, if there is a further incident and the H&S issue hadn't been dealt with then it would be a whole different ball game this timeweight loss target 23lbs/49lb0 -
From OP:
Now it's all well & good as i'm not injured, so we can laugh about it or come up with any sort of excuse as to why i may have been at fault somehow
But it'd be a total different matter if he hit a toddler & killed them because he can't engage his feet quick enough!!!
Question is:
IF i had been injured to the point where i'd have had to have taken time of work, where would i have legally stood with that one?
My answer:
1. Hitting a child & killing them is a total different ball game.
2. Could it be proven that he was driving without undue care and attention? who knows but I wouldn't sit down pondering on something that, should have,could have, would have, happened unless I have to.It's better to regret something I did do than to regret something that I didn’t. :EasterBun0 -
Mistral001 wrote: »The car driver was probably initially in the wrong, but the OP did not need to take any action and should have treated him as the fool he was and not have provoked him.
The thing is though, the individual is as equally responsible for their own health and safety as the employer is. If the individual does nothing to prevent a preventable situation from occurring, ie decided they were not going to move even though they could easily have, then they are as equally responsible as the person who drove into them.0 -
This isn't a H+S at work issue- the OP was, if my understanding is correct, driven into deliberatley by a vehicle, and the driver tought it was a bit of a laugh. It's a criminal matter, even if the OP was not injured. Although it happened on private land, the RTA may still apply if the general public have access to the land, which seems to be the case here."You were only supposed to blow the bl**dy doors off!!"0
-
Yes you are correct, i was not going to move, i will freely admit, i was being stubborn, but that's not the point here now is it.dickydonkin wrote: »Seems to me the only negligent party here was the OP.
Many H&S pieces of legislation have been mentioned here - except section 7 of the HASWA that places a duty on the employee to take reasonable care of himself and others.
Absolutely agree. The OP was being bloody minded - had she been injured, her obvious lack of evasive action would have been wholly relevant to any claim she may choose to make.
To the OP - anger management classes - look 'em up - you seem to have issues.:hello:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards