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.

Treating Every Employee in the Same Way May Itself Be Discriminatory

Anti-discrimination laws are often viewed as requiring employers to treat all their staff in the same way. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, the positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to cater for disabled workers’ needs may require them to be treated more favourably than their colleagues. The case concerned a quality controller in a food packing plant who was disabled by back pain and depression. He worked 12-hour night shifts in the refrigerated plant and was on…

Employment Contracts and the Implication of Terms by Custom and Practice

Workers wishing to discern the extent of their entitlements need usually do no more than read their employment contracts. As one case showed, the occasions when further rights are to be implied into a contract, having been established by custom and practice, are few and far between. The case concerned a claim by 27 ex-employees of a food company to enhanced redundancy payments. Their contracts did not expressly give them a right to such payments, but they argued that the company and others in…

Foster Panel Chair an Independent Officeholder, Not an Employee

The distinction between an independent officeholder and an employee could hardly be more important but is sometimes difficult to discern. That was certainly so in the case of a woman who served for many years as an independent chair of a local authority’s fostering panel. After her appointment was terminated, the woman lodged an Employment Tribunal (ET) complaint against the council, alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The council denied her claims and, at a preliminary hearing,…