Accident at work, employer says i can't claim

dickydonkin

So your employer believes that by having a wet floor A Board in the vicinity of a contaminated floor precludes you from making a claim for personal injury?

Well he would do wouldn't he!

From a personal view, I find those A boards create just as much a tripping hazard than the wet floor they purport to be indicating. I have seen these things left all day when a floor has dried up so people can and do tend to become too familiar with them and ignore them anyway!

Although slips and trips are up there with manual handling as the cause of most workplace injuries in any environment, catering in particular can tend to have increased hazards as floors can frequently become contaminated with food and liquids with this sector more susceptible to secondary hazards when slipping/falling on a floor.

Incidentally, irrespective of the time you have lost off work, a broken kneecap will be deemed as a 'specified injury' under RIDDOR and should have been reported within ten days of the incident. I would check with your employer to see if they have fulfilled this legal requirement.

It is difficult to apportion any blame without actually seeing where the incident took place and to what controls, training, floor surfaces (and their condition), lighting, footwear, risk assessments, policies and procedures etc. are in place and who monitors all of the above.

The employer simply cannot dismiss a claim for personal injury based on a wet floor sign being placed in the vicinity as other factors need to be considered.

As others have suggested, a chat with a lawyer is a wise move and I suspect he/she will ask questions relating to the potential contributing factors I alluded to earlier.

Good luck and I hope you knee improves very soon.

Pennywise wrote: »

Should you not have expected it to be wet then if it was a normal occurrence?

Which is like asking the victim of a road accident that they should have known other cars were also using the road. Circumstances such as pressure of work, conditions of surfaces and other factors can all contribute to an accident. Human beings are not robots.

agrinnall

dickydonkin wrote: »

Which is like asking the victim of a road accident that they should have known other cars were also using the road. Circumstances such as pressure of work, conditions of surfaces and other factors can all contribute to an accident. Human beings are not robots.

Hardly an equivalent situation, a road accident doesn't occur simply because there are other cars on the road, they occur because of the actions of those human beings you refer to. Whereas the OP's accident was one that he could have foreseen because the floor is always wet at the end of service. There may be other factors that we don't know about, but if this does make it to court I would expect the employer's legal representative to make this the core of their defence - although the employer has probably not helped themselves by getting people to lie about the A board.

dickydonkin

agrinnall wrote: »

Hardly an equivalent situation, a road accident doesn't occur simply because there are other cars on the road, they occur because of the actions of those human beings you refer to. Whereas the OP's accident was one that he could have foreseen because the floor is always wet at the end of service. There may be other factors that we don't know about, but if this does make it to court I would expect the employer's legal representative to make this the core of their defence - although the employer has probably not helped themselves by getting people to lie about the A board.

And that was my point!

Human factors are difficult to control and that is why it is important to maintain a safe environment to mitigate the consequences of a lapse, error or other distraction. My analogy of a motor accident would be that barriers, speed limits, road signs, markings, good road surfaces etc are in place to make our roads safer.

But back to the accident, I don't recall the OP stating the floor was "always wet", however, if indeed this was a regular occurrence, from an accident investigative perspective, I would want to know why the floor is frequently wet - particularly on a busy walkway - which was a major factor to the cause of the accident.

I alluded to in my earlier post that kitchen floors can and do get contaminated by spillages of food and liquids, however, it is totally unacceptable for a kitchen walkway to be wet all (or most) of the time where staff are carrying knives, hot foot/liquids and where a slip in such an area can (and has) resulted in serious injuries due to impact with very hot equipment and liquids.

It could be leaking equipment or pipework - we don't know, but the OP has suffered an injury at work, and I suspect that due to the alleged lie about the A Board, I dare bet that the incident has not been reported either - which is a legal requirement.

If this has been reported however, it would be foolish at best to state on a legal document (form 2508) that A boards were in place when they allegedly were not.

I also wonder if the accident has indeed been investigated by someone who has the skills to determine the cause and implement appropriate measures to prevent a repetition - I suspect not.

Too many people blame the injured party - usually they are accused of 'not paying attention', they 'should have seen the hazard', they were 'stupid' - but the reality is that hefty fines are dished out to companies who were quite content to allow their workers to work in dangerous conditions, but sadly the 'stupid' victims have to suffer.

OP - I would strongly suggest you see a solicitor who will assess the validity of your claim. Your employer may not like it, but I suspect you don't like having a bust knee either!

Mrs_Optimist

Yes you will have a claim. All employees will have to sign a Statement of Truth to their witness statements. A half decent Solicitor will soon show up any discrepancies in their statements.

Do you have legal cover on your household insurance? A no win, no fee
, solicitor can be found quite easily if not.

You don't know what your recovery time will be, whether you may need surgery or if there will be long term damage which may affect you in the future.

If it wasn't in the accident book, the fact your employer has got staff to sign false witness statements confirms that your accident did occur at work.

agrinnall

dickydonkin wrote: »

But back to the accident, I don't recall the OP stating the floor was "always wet", however, if indeed this was a regular occurrence, from an accident investigative perspective, I would want to know why the floor is frequently wet - particularly on a busy walkway - which was a major factor to the cause of the accident.

You're right, I was mistaken, it doesn't say that. But it would be reasonable to assume that the floor is always mopped at the end of service, and that the OP would know that and should therefore exercise a greater degree of caution at that point in the evening. We don't know the degree of wetness: if there were puddles of water beyond what would normally be expected then that might be a significant factor, but if it was a normally damp floor then I don't see how that can be avoided, should the kitchen be off limits until the floor has completely dried?

dickydonkin

agrinnall wrote: »

but if it was a normally damp floor then I don't see how that can be avoided, should the kitchen be off limits until the floor has completely dried?

That would be impractical in a commercial kitchen, but I just wonder why the floor is persistently wet around a busy thoroughfare.

Wet and contaminated floors in and around doorways - especially when you are entering the kitchen 'blind' (by virtue of the closed door concealing the hazard) and for the majority of times, carrying plates, glasses, etc. is an accident waiting to happen.

Dishwashing areas can get frequently wet, although if a modern dishwasher is used, this issue should not be a problem. Where pots are washed in a sink, then that can create problems.

Leaking fridges, condensation, damaged pipework can all create water contamination to floor areas and in kitchens where cleanliness is not a priority, a thin layer of grease on a floor surface with water lying on top is a lethal combination.

It would probably be impractical to remove/segregate the person from the hazard, but steps should be taken to remove the hazard from the person by determining why the floor is getting wet for prolonged periods and address the problem.

Anti-slip footwear and non slip floors would greatly improve the situation, but addressing the cause is always the better option.
Perhaps the OP could shed light on the source of the contamination.

theoretica

Employers are obliged to have employee liability insurance, so you wouldn't necessarily be claiming against the employer directly (though their premiums might go up). Car insurance says 'don't admit liability' and I imagine guidance for this type of insurance is similar, so I am not surprised your employer woud say you don't have a case.

Prothet_of_Doom

micky5k wrote: »

I have recently learned that my employer has made all staff on shift that night sign statements that a wet floor sign was in the kitchen and that would mean i am not entitled to a compensation claim if I was to try for one..

Are you suggesting that your employer has coerced, employees, to make FALSE statements, with threats and intimidation, relating to their likely length of future employment?

Which would be a criminal offence, and likely to result in a short prison sentence, especially if in court the lie was repeated.

I've had training is work place risk assessment, and done dozens of machinery and factory job risk assessments, and the sign is irrelevant in my very humble opinion.

Did the employer take all reasonable precautions? Did they provide shoes with anti-slip soles, as suggested by the HSE ?

I quote the HSE:

The European PPE Directive recognises the need for slip resistance as a protective property of footwear. Demonstration of compliance with this requirement is often claimed through the use of mechanical tests. One such mechanical test (BS EN ISO 13287: 2012) forms the basis of the commonly used standards BS EN ISO 20345:2011, BS EN ISO 20346:2004 + A1: 2007 and BS EN ISO 20347:2012. These standards provide a minimum level of compliance.

Footwear selection should be informed by a risk assessment. For low hazard environments One Star or Two Star footwear is a sensible way to protect your staff from slips. Where slips are known to occur, Three Star or Four Star footwear will reduce the occurrence of slipping. In the most challenging workplaces, Five Star footwear may be necessary to adequately control slip risk.

The effectiveness of rated footwear should be monitored as part of the risk assessment review process. If, for example, slips occur in Two Star footwear, you should consider upgrading to footwear with a higher rating.

You need to see a solicitor who is experienced in industrial injuries, because having an A sign, is not doing everything possible within reason to avoid an injury.

Takeaway_Addict

paddedjohn wrote: »

Tell your boss that you may have to claim against him for loss of earnings as ssp isn't enough to live on, he may be happy to top your wage up to avoid any action.

Unlikely....payout would be from an insurance company so why pay more than legally required?

dickydonkin

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Did the employer take all reasonable precautions? Did they provide shoes with anti-slip soles, as suggested by the HSE ?

A valid point, but personal protective equipment is - or should always be the last line of defence in protecting people.

Collective measures are more effective as many people can find boots, masks, ear protection etc. uncomfortable to use and may 'forget' to use them.

In the OP's situation, the ideal control measure would be in the first instance, try to address the source of the floor contamination.

In kitchen areas where there is always a risk of spillages, a non slip floor surface is very effective which could be supplemented by suitable footwear with anti-slip soles if it has been deemed necessary.

Unfortunately, if someone stands on a dropped mushroom/chip or something that compromises the traction underfoot, good floors or soles may still not be effective, but hopefully a good housekeeping regime would ensure spillages and dropped items on the floor are dealt with as soon as contamination occurs.

Far too many employers are happy just to dish out Hi-viz jackets, dust masks, safety boots, hard hats, earplugs etc. rather than attempting to eradicate the hazard at source - hence reducing the need for PPE.......but that would cost more than a cheap bit of imported PPE from China!

Other than the OP's suffering, it is also disturbing that the employer is allegedly falsifying the accident report - that is unforgivable and for that alone, would make me more determined to progress this..