Not Every Accident Can be Explained – Workplace Head Injuries Ruling

Judges are experts at uncovering the truth but, in rare cases, it is simply not possible to decisively establish the cause of an accident. That was so in the case of an HGV driver who had no memory of an incident which left him with life-changing head injuries.

The man had been cleaning…

Nov 04, 2021

Pexels pixabay 532079 1024x681

Judges are experts at uncovering the truth but, in rare cases, it is simply not possible to decisively establish the cause of an accident. That was so in the case of an HGV driver who had no memory of an incident which left him with life-changing head injuries.

The man had been cleaning his tractor unit before he was found unconscious in the yard of the crane hire company he worked for. Due to the severity of his head injuries, he had no recollection of how he suffered two blows with a hard, flat, blunt object. The hard hat that he had been wearing was found lying undamaged nearby and a CCTV camera that might have recorded what happened was not working.

A personal injury claim was launched against the company on the basis that he had been struck by a hook block, weighing about three quarters of a tonne, that was attached to a nearby crane. In denying liability, however, the company pointed out that no witness had seen the crane move. A non-forensic examination of the hook block did not reveal any disturbance of a layer of dust and dirt that had accumulated on its surface.

In dismissing the man’s claim, a judge declared herself unable to reach a conclusion as to the probable cause of his injuries. One possible alternative explanation was that he had been assaulted with a weapon. Whilst making no firm finding that such an attack occurred, she concluded that the burden of proving that the hook block moved and caused the man’s injuries had not been discharged.

In rejecting his challenge to that outcome, the High Court acknowledged the serious consequences of his injuries. The judge’s reasoning was, however, sound and there was no flaw in her consideration of the evidence.

ET Erred in Considering ‘Last Straw’ in Constructive Dismissal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an HGV driver’s appeal against the rejection of his constructive unfair dismissal claim, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had misdirected itself on the proper approach to considering the ‘last straw’. The HGV driver’s role involved collecting spent grain from distilleries, taking it to a biogas plant and tipping it into an intake hopper. Following operational changes at the plant, he felt under pressure and found it difficult to take…

Running a Business Via Group Chats and Instant Messaging Has Its Pitfalls

Business owners who use social media group chats or instant messaging as an easy means of communicating instructions to staff may be prompted by an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision to consider other management tools. The owner of a family-run plant nursery suffered from anxiety and, during a period in which he largely worked from home, communicated with staff by means of social media group chats. The tone of such messages was generally very informal and jokes and swear words were sometimes…

Employers – Knee-Jerk Reactions to Fractious Situations Can Cost You Dear

When employees query the contents of their wage packets, terse conversations can ensue. As one case showed, however, knee-jerk reactions to such situations are a positive invitation to Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings. The case concerned a hotel worker in her probationary period. She considered that her first payslip was about £1,000 short. She had been paid in accordance with the hotel’s payroll system, but that system had not been explained to her. Her initial reaction was to place a…