Goodge Law client receives significant compensation for workplace injury
I acted for a client on a no win, no fee basis after they were injured working as a security guard for a large company. The accident occurred when my client was signing in a visitor near to some security barriers. The barriers were in the raised position. While in the process of dealing with the visitor, for no apparent reason, the barriers crashed down, striking my client across his shoulders causing injury.
My client filled in the accident book and there were witnesses who provided signed statements. He was quite entitled to make a personal injury compensation claim from his employers.
This seemed like a straight-forward case where the employer was responsible for the safety of the employee under a general duty to provide a safe system of work. The safety barrier had a safety loop installed so that if any people or vehicles were near the barrier it would remain in the up position. Furthermore, my client could also manually override the barrier and keep it up. It was that function that failed.
Such an event is contrary to Regulations 5 and 18 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, the combined effect of which is to impose an obligation upon any employer to keep in good working order any powered gate which must have suitable and effective features to prevent it causing injury by trapping any person.
Likewise Regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states that the employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient working order and in good repair.
I sent my client for a medical assessment to confirm the extent of the injuries that he had received. This is a standard procedure when I work on personal injury cases. Although an injury can look genuine to the lay-person, it is very important that a medical professional provides clear evidence detailing the nature and the extent of the injuries.
My client’s employers disputed liability on the basis that a collapsible skirt on the base of the barrier was responsible for the accident and, in any case, another company was responsible for all barrier maintenance. This is not the first time I have seen cases in my London offices, where large companies try to avoid paying compensation for genuine injury claims to their employees.
I subsequently ensured my client received significant compensation for their injury. This happened after my client’s employers eventually saw sense and paid out my client for his injuries and other losses four days before trial at a cost of over £20,000 of legal costs.