Obviously don't know the ins and outs, but if management knew their staff were breaking HSE law and were turning a blind eye to it, they would still be liable.I can't go into details but I can think of two cases that I dealt with this last year where the staff members owned up to doing things that they shouldn't be doing but still got compensated"Yes I know there were signs up telling me how to do it but I didn't follow them and hurt myself"
Accident at work advice
- Thread starter Daff_Duck
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,777
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
They aren't turning a blind eye.
I'll change the stories a bit but they still hold true:
1) To enter a certain department there are lots of signs telling you how to enter properly and signs saying 'DO NOT STEP OVER' and so on. This staff member admitted to going against all the signs, fell over and still got paid out.
2) A member of staff was walking on a piece of decking when they thought it was unsafe underneath. They admitted to jumping up and down on it quite a few times and then it gave way resulting in a broken ankle and torn knee ligaments. They got paid out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,267
- Location
- Surrey
Stupidity, it pays.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 9,389
- Location
- London
In the first case, it seems the employer solely relied upon warning signs to control the risk posed by the hazard. From a legal point of view, that is unacceptable. They have to take "reasonably practicable" steps to control such risks. That means control measures which balance the cost of implementation with the level of risk posed, i.e. they must be proportionate.
The fact that they had numerous signs means they considered there to be significant risk. They therefore had a duty to implement more comprehensive control measures higher up the hierarchy of control, such as limiting access.
How would the signs have stopped a man who can't read (whether English or at all) or who is visually impaired?
In the second case, the stupidity of the "victim" is no defence for allowing unsafe decking...
For me I'd only claim if it was a serious injury which resulted in a change of lifestyle due to said injury. A cut, a scar, a burn, unless severe I would not claim for. If it broke a bone, caused a loss of a limb or caused serious psychological problems, then that's the point where I feel it's acceptable, but only if my own stupidity wasn't too blame.
The things that really tick me off are people claiming on things that they caused themselves, but through some loophole, they are able to claim for it. The person who claimed against McDonald's because they spilt coffee on themselves comes to mind.
Last edited:
I burnt myself at work about 3 weeks ago. I had just welded something and when I picked it up to inspect it it swung backwards and burnt me just past my wrist, about an inch long. A neat little scar I have now.
Want to know what I did? thought about wearing sleeves in the future since I know I work with hot stuff.
Want to know what I did? thought about wearing sleeves in the future since I know I work with hot stuff.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 252
- Location
- GB
It is 100% true. About 5 years ago, before I started working here, someone else slipped went the floor was wet mopped and it was recommended to be changed.
Since I slipped the floor has been changed and when any cleaning is done there are loads of signs out, probably equally as hazardous!
Most people at work assume I have been awarded money for the injury. Is there a time limit from accident to when you can claim?
