Advice needed.Injury at work

ohreally

Transformers wrote: »

Aren't security guards required to be observant?

Are t workplaces required to be safe?

pinkshoes

If someone had opened the window just as you were walking past, then fair enough, but as you walked into an already open window, i would just put it down to your own lack of concentration and move on.

They do need to address the fact that the windows open out onto a walk way, so care needs to be taken when opening a window in case someone is walking past, but this isn't the case here.

Tiredness isn't really an excuse. I used to work 12 hour night shifts and was expected to be alert throughout my shift.

dickydonkin

pinkshoes wrote: »

Tiredness isn't really an excuse. I used to work 12 hour night shifts and was expected to be alert throughout my shift.

As most people should be during the course of their work or indeed everyday life, but evidence concludes that fatigue and shiftwork does affect a workers performance and tiredness is a very credible excuse!

Are you suggesting that a tired driver is a safe driver? If not, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your assertion that tiredness is not an excuse for an accident.

The stark reality is that as I alluded to earlier that human factors can and do significantly contribute to accidents.

Have you never been distracted or been at work where family issues are on your mind that may result in a lack of concentration?

I can go on - and again, that is why legislation is in place to protect everyone - not just workers.

If the same situation was for example at a school and a child ran into an open window resulting in an injury that left a scar for life on the child's face - would you also suggest that the child lacked concentration and it was the kids fault?

Your answer would likely be along the lines of the injured child was young and was playing, distracted or had limited hazard perception - which of course is understandable in a child.

Using the same analogy, imagine if an elderly person walked into an open window on the High Street - should the elderly person also have been more alert?

Schools, factories and shops etc. all have to comply with the same UK health and safety legislation.

I have mentioned the same open window scenario highlighting three different people - the OP, a child and an elderly person.

I suspect the child and the elderly person would get more sympathy that the OP who suffered the same injury by the same cause, but
can you now see that collective controls (in this case the simple requirement to comply with legislation that would not have allowed the window to fully open) would have protected everyone irrespective of age, hazard perception or any human failing howsoever caused.

pjm_82

tomtontom wrote: »

Nope, however you approach it there's no way any reasonable person would miss that.

I'd recommend a trip to Specsavers.

grow up moron .if all you have is negativity then dont bother commenting

TBagpuss

It is sensible to get advice. I suspect that any claim would be of pretty low value to start with, as it sounds as though the injury was a fairly minor one. In addition, any award might be reduced on the basis of contributory negligence - Yes, the company should perhaps have fitted a restrictor or done more to ensure that the area was well lit / the window was more obvious, but at the same time you could have done more to pay attention to where you were going.

Undervalued

pjm_82 wrote: »

grow up moron .if all you have is negativity then dont bother commenting

Sometimes the best advice is that which you least want to hear!

dickydonkin

Undervalued wrote: »

Sometimes the best advice is that which you least want to hear!

And a trip to specsavers is the 'best advice'?

TBagpuss wrote: »

Yes, the company should perhaps have fitted a restrictor or done more to ensure that the area was well lit / the window was more obvious, but at the same time you could have done more to pay attention to where you were going.

I fail to see where 'contributory negligence' would come into play here. If the area in which the OP sustained his injury was (for example) a mandatory head protection area and he failed to wear head protection, then in such a scenario, potentially contributory negligence would then be considered if a PI claim was submitted.

Are you also suggesting that the thousands of people who submit P.I.claims against local authorities for injuries resulting from tripping on poorly maintained/damaged footpaths were also partly 'negligent' for failing to spot the damage?

The reality is that it doesn't work like that for the reasons I alluded to in my previous posts.

Savvy_Sue

One thing to say to the OP is that it could be worth asking who the main Health and Safety rep for the whole site is, and making sure that the issue has been flagged up with them. As dicky said, the yellow and black tape is 'useless at best'.

Either the gap between the buildings needs to be closed off, or the windows need retainers. IM completely unqualified O.