Injury at work summer 2012

Caroline_a

patman99 wrote: »

Typical. Someone walks-around without a clear view of where they are going and trips over an object in their path & all of a sudden the firm is at fault for the person's accident.
I'm surprised that she didn't get sent on a safe working practices course.

I believe there is a time limit in which to start (and complete) an accident claim. Lets hope the airport don't string-out their response time to push it beyond the 2 year mark & time-out the claim as Guilform did to a mate of mine a year or 2 back.

I think that the time is 3 years, and the clock stops once you put in your claim.

dickydonkin

patman99 wrote: »

Typical. Someone walks-around without a clear view of where they are going and trips over an object in their path & all of a sudden the firm is at fault for the person's accident.

I know what you mean.

How are there so many people knocked down by cars every year? - I mean they are easy to see and have to travel on designated areas. Obviously all of such accidents are the pedestrians fault for having the audacity to walk on or near a road!

The reality is that the injured person tripped over a pallet - I would ask what a pallet is doing on the floor of a public area.

As for the injury - it would be wise to wait until a professional diagnosis has been confirmed.

paddedjohn

dickydonkin wrote: »

I know what you mean.

How are there so many people knocked down by cars every year? - I mean they are easy to see and have to travel on designated areas. Obviously all of such accidents are the pedestrians fault for having the audacity to walk on or near a road!

The reality is that the injured person tripped over a pallet - I would ask what a pallet is doing on the floor of a public area.

As for the injury - it would be wise to wait until a professional diagnosis has been confirmed.

Apart from asking why the pallet was placed in a pedestrian area, why was the OP,s mil looking at her clipboard instead of looking where she was walking?

dickydonkin

paddedjohn wrote: »

Apart from asking why the pallet was placed in a pedestrian area, why was the OP,s mil looking at her clipboard instead of looking where she was walking?

........durrrrrrr - doing her job perhaps?

Many accidents are caused by distractions, however, bearing in mind the area in which this incident occurrred was also a public area, this is all the more reason why the area should have been free from obstructions.

We can all get distracted.

Do you never read signposts that are deliberately located at height to enable the public to see them? Have you never looked at such directional signage while you are walking - perhaps for a certain departure gate at an airport? Would you be deemed careless for looking at signage when you are walking?

Have you never looked at directional signs when you are driving which requires you to momentarily take your eyes off the road?

Have you never walked pushing a shopping trolley in a supermarket while looking at the goods on the shelf?

I am stating how it is in respect of claiming for a persoanl injury and why walkways/public areas should be free from obstructions - unless we all walk like Zombies - face forward all the time - then there will always be the potential for a slip/trip virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately for the duty holder of the premises, they have potentially failed in keeping walkways clear and should the IP decide to progress a claim, then she would have a reasonable chance of success - based on the information provided.