Serious injury at work - what next?

Uncle_Cuddles

My brother was seriously injured at work a couple of weeks ago. He maintains public grounds (cemetries usually weeding, cutting grass and clearing rubbish). He was asked to help lift a fallen gravestone by a colleague, which is not his job, but being the helpful sort he did. As far as I am aware, they had all the correct equipment (ropes, bars and winches, etc), but something went wrong and a metal bar which he was using to lever the gravestone basically hit him in the mouth, knocking out virtually all his teeth, virtually tearing off his lip. He needed many stitches inside and around his mouth. He can't remember the accident or how it happened. He has been off work since as he is still in a lot of pain, and he is thoroughly depressed because he doesn't know if he should try to claim compensation because he doesn't want to lose his job. His work is trying to make out it was his own fault because he should not have been there and witnesses say he did not "brace" enough when he was told to (he can't remember this). He is not in a union and is not sought any advice.

I am loath to suggest he just goes to see a no win no fee solicitor, but I can't think of anything else. He needs to at least get his teeth sorted.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

dandelionclock30

Go to the CAB and ask them for advice, its free.
This is why people should be in a union.

Mrs_Arcanum

Does he have any legal cover on any insurances as this might be a way of avoiding the NWNF people? Other than that he must not admit any fault (his memory could be faulty and consequently manipulated by others). Union membership is not required. May well be worth saying to his work place that he is looking at the legalities of The whole thing (not receiving the correct H&S training/Manual Handling etc) and all he wants is his teeth sorted.

Sambucus_Nigra

To be fair, if it's not his job we can deduce that he isn't trained and hence, may well have not braced when he should have. So they do have a point.

However, if something needed doing and it was a two person job, why did the employer not make sure two trained people were on site ready to complete the job?

Notmyrealname

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

However, if something needed doing and it was a two person job, why did the employer not make sure two trained people were on site ready to complete the job?

Are you for real? It was using a pry bar to lift up the stone. You don't need a degree in engineering to do this.

That comment is as asinine as suggesting that you need to train every employee on how to plug something into a mains socket.

Sambucus_Nigra

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Are you for real? It was using a pry bar to lift up the stone. You don't need a degree in engineering to do this.

That comment is as asinine as suggesting that you need to train every employee on how to plug something into a mains socket.

I don't particularly agree with it. It's the argument that the company will use to get out of compensation. It's called [you may need to write this down] 'seeing things from both sides'.

And I'd say that if it can rip your teeth and lip off - it probably needs some training. As per the risk assessment. Which the OP's brother may not have seen as he hasn't been trained.

maginot

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Are you for real? It was using a pry bar to lift up the stone. You don't need a degree in engineering to do this.

That comment is as asinine as suggesting that you need to train every employee on how to plug something into a mains socket.

You don't need a degree, however an employer has a duty of care to minimise risk. Having training in how to use lifting equipment would probably be a big part of the risk assessment.

The HSE has clear guidelines for this.

It may seem silly, but where I work there was a full days training on how to use a ladder??? As shown by the fact this person has now been permanently disfigured, there obviously was a risk, and this may not have happened if procedures had been followed.

To the OP, you do need to seek legal advice, whether from CAB or choose your own solicitor before proceeding.

dickydonkin

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Are you for real? It was using a pry bar to lift up the stone. You don't need a degree in engineering to do this.

That comment is as asinine as suggesting that you need to train every employee on how to plug something into a mains socket.

Sambucas Nigra is correct.

You used the analogy relating to training every employee how to plug something into a mains socket.

Well the reality is that it is the employers duty to inform their employees and others who may be affected - the hazards and associated risks they may encounter during the course of their work.

Again, using your example, I agree it would not be necessary to 'train' someone how to plug something into a mains socket, however, the employer would need to inform the employee the risks from the electrical appliance/equipment they are 'plugging in'.

As for the OP - maginot's post was also correct where s/he suggested that a risk assessment should have been carried out.

After a risk assessment was carried out, a safe system/method of work should have been adopted. This would almost certainly have indicated the numbers of trained personnel and equipment to be used - and that they were trained on that equipment.

Due to the physical nature of the task, it should also have stipulated that authorised staff would need to be trained in manual handling.

It may transpire that none of the above was actually carried out and conveyed to the workers involved.

There may be an element of contributory negligence by the OP, however, I have had experience of a similar situation where an employee lost his finger in a machine he should not have been using.

The HSE became involved and to cut a long story short, the employer was in breach of statute law - even though he admitted he knew he was not authorised to use the machine, however, I understand that the injured person was awarded compensation in a civil claim with a reduction due to contributory negligence.

How the employer will respond to a claim for compensation is a different matter.

SarEl

I know how the employer will react. It's public sector. They will argue to toss for a while because their insurers will be insiting they do - then the insurers will settle. They always do. But I wouldn't expect it to happen quickly.

Googlewhacker

dickydonkin wrote: »

Sambucas Nigra is correct.

You used the analogy relating to training every employee how to plug something into a mains socket.

Well the reality is that it is the employers duty to inform their employees and others who may be affected - the hazards and associated risks they may encounter during the course of their work.

Again, using your example, I agree it would not be necessary to 'train' someone how to plug something into a mains socket, however, the employer would need to inform the employee the risks from the electrical appliance/equipment they are 'plugging in'.

As for the OP - maginot's post was also correct where s/he suggested that a risk assessment should have been carried out.

After a risk assessment was carried out, a safe system/method of work should have been adopted. This would almost certainly have indicated the numbers of trained personnel and equipment to be used - and that they were trained on that equipment.

Due to the physical nature of the task, it should also have stipulated that authorised staff would need to be trained in manual handling.

It may transpire that none of the above was actually carried out and conveyed to the workers involved.

There may be an element of contributory negligence by the OP, however, I have had experience of a similar situation where an employee lost his finger in a machine he should not have been using.

The HSE became involved and to cut a long story short, the employer was in breach of statute law - even though he admitted he knew he was not authorised to use the machine, however, I understand that the injured person was awarded compensation in a civil claim with a reduction due to contributory negligence.

How the employer will respond to a claim for compensation is a different matter.

The fact he was awarded anything for using a machine that he knew and admitted he was not authorised to use is a disgrace (presuming he wasn't told to use it by the employer).

Absolutely barmy.

dacouch

Googlewhacker wrote: »

The fact he was awarded anything for using a machine that he knew and admitted he was not authorised to use is a disgrace (presuming he wasn't told to use it by the employer).

Absolutely barmy.

I had a client who was sued by an employee who had injured himself whilst using the employers machines on a Sunday (With no permission whatsoever) whilst working on a PRIVATE cash job.