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.

Racism on the Shop Floor – Employers Can Expect to Carry the Can

Some shop floors are rough and ready places where foul language abounds, but if a worker makes a racist or other discriminatory comment it is likely to be the employer who ends up carrying the legal can. An Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling underlined the necessity of keeping a lid on things and nipping such conduct in the bud. The case concerned a black machine operator who was furious that his line manager had reported him for alleged unsafe use of machinery. A fierce altercation developed…

Dismissal for Failure to Disclose Earlier Dismissal Not Unfair

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected a man’s appeal against a decision that he had not been unfairly dismissed for failing to disclose a previous dismissal and a subsequent three-month employment gap on his job application. The man had started working for the Home Office in 2002. In 2016 he was dismissed for gross misconduct. He brought Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings and a conciliation settlement was reached, the terms of which did not alter the basis of his dismissal. In…

Employer’s Hardline Anti-Corruption Policy Passes Legal Test

Many businesses, particularly those that deal with governmental authorities, sensibly have anti-corruption policies in place. One such policy came under close analysis in an employment case concerning a golfing trip provided to a public official. A senior employee of a software company was dismissed for gross misconduct after he authorised payment of the cost of the overseas trip taken by a senior official in a government agency. He subsequently launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings,…