Injured Fairground Worker Succeeds in Personal Injury Claim

There are often few, if any, witnesses to accidents at work and accounts of how they occurred may differ dramatically. As a case concerning an injured fairground worker showed, however, judges are adept at weighing up the evidence before reaching conclusions as to the most likely sequence of…

Nov 13, 2023

Carnival rides 1024x768

There are often few, if any, witnesses to accidents at work and accounts of how they occurred may differ dramatically. As a case concerning an injured fairground worker showed, however, judges are adept at weighing up the evidence before reaching conclusions as to the most likely sequence of events.

The worker suffered multiple injuries to his right foot when he fell 15-20 feet whilst working on a ride. His account was that he and a manager were standing on a wet handrail, attempting to free a seized bolt, when he fell. He said that a scaffolding pole had been attached to a standard spanner, with a view to improving leverage, and that he lost his footing when the bolt suddenly gave way.

After he launched a personal injury claim, however, his employer denied liability. It asserted, amongst other things, that the manager was not present when he fell and that he was neither instructed nor authorised to work at height. All reasonable steps were said to have been taken to minimise risk of injury in that only the manager was allowed to work at height and he was provided with a harness.

Following a trial, however, a judge preferred the worker’s account of what had happened. His description of events leading up to the accident had been consistent throughout and was inherently credible. On that basis, the judge had no hesitation in finding that his injuries arose from an unsafe system of work.

He had no formal health and safety training, having learned on the job, and the judge found that the manager had positively requested his assistance in performing a task that was foreseeably dangerous. If not agreed, the amount of his compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Company Directors – You Need to Act to Secure Your Employment Rights

Company directors with imperfect knowledge of employment law all too often fail to confer upon themselves the basic legal protections to which even their most junior members of staff are entitled. In a case on point, a businessman found himself in a very weak position following his removal from the company he co-founded. The man was a 45 per cent shareholder and director of the company, which thrived in its early days, employing about 80 staff and turning over around £1.8 million. As its…

Sexual Harassment and the Rights of Accused Employees – Guideline Ruling

Sensible employers take accusations of sexual harassment very seriously indeed. As an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling underlined, however, the rights of any employee accused of such harassment must be treated with equal gravity. The case concerned a male scientist who was accused of sexual harassment by a female colleague. Following a lengthy grievance procedure, a panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had attempted to hug and kiss her when they were in a car together…

Can a Sham Procedure Comply With the Acas Code? Employment Test Case

Responsible employers who follow full and fair procedures in line with the Acas Code generally have a powerful defence to unfair dismissal claims – but what if a procedure is found to be a total sham? The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered that issue in an important test case. The case concerned a senior employee who was purportedly dismissed on grounds of redundancy. In upholding her subsequent unfair dismissal claim, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the redundancy procedure was…