Injury lawyers etc

[Donkmeister]

Normally I watch those injury lawyers adverts with revulsion, and wonder when the compensation culture took over from the concept of "bad luck"...

But, I've been puzzling over this hypothetical situation and would be interested to hear what others have to say.

Person A is doing his job one day, when his colleague, Person B, does something stupid that results in injury to Person A. For example, he pulls his chair out whilst he's sitting down, or sticks his foot out to trip him up, and Person A ends up with a back injury.

Person A is laid up for a couple of weeks, and gets full pay from the employer during his convalescence.

However... Person A has a hobby: DIY. Person A is in the middle of doing up a house but due to his injury is unable to continue DIY for several months and will thus be living in a building site (along with his family) for months longer than he would have been without the injury.

What is the just outcome?

Should Person A be compensated in order to hire in contractors to continue his work? If so, should that compensation come from Person B or the employer?

Or, should the employer offer additional paid time off once Person A has recovered, in order to replace the lost weekends and evenings he would have had for his DIY? Should that time off be taken from Person B's allowance?

Or, should Person A just shrug his shoulders and put it down to bad luck?

Should Person B be subject to a disciplinary, if he was just larking about and didn't deliberately injur Person A?

Lastly, what if this injury turns out to be permanent, and has an effect on Person A's quality of life (unable to do anymore DIY forever, can't do any sports, constantly in pain etc)

 

[Blasphemous]

Yeah I hate those adverts too but they're not half as complicated as the predicament person A and B seem to have found themselves involved in!

 

[dextrous]

Person B is culpable for the whole lot - compensating the employer plus person A.

 

[Donkmeister]

Yeah I hate those adverts too but they're not half as complicated as the predicament person A and B seem to have found themselves involved in!

It sounds complicated, but I was just thinking about it because DIY is something I enjoy doing that requires physical fitness (in a manner of speaking!). I know I would hate to be deprived of that ability.

Especially if it meant I would have to live in a building site for several years until I saved up to pay for builders to finish the job. That must be hard on personal relationships too.

So I got to thinking "Perhaps in this case it is only fair that someone pays up to ensure Person A doesn't end up depressed and divorced because he will have to live in a building site". But who?

 

[joinerjohn]

I particularly hate the advert that goes like this,,,

"I was installing a fire alarm..., My employers gave me the wrong sort of ladder..... I dislocated my right shoulder, crushed my ribs and was off work for weeks etc etc"

Why did he use the wrong ladder then?
One point that's wrong on the advert is the fact that he's up the ladder without anyone or anything footing the ladder. He himself has broken several H&S rules.

 

[Blasphemous]

This is one for 'Injury Lawyers 4U' I think Donk.

I see your point though.

 

[dextrous]

On the other hand, suppose person A injures himself whilst doing some DIY. Among the consequences outlined regarding the state of his house and subsequent divorce, how does this affect his employer?

Should his employer pay for his sick leave?

Suppose further that person B now has to do additional work to cover for person A's absence. While doing this, he has a break down..... etc etc etc.
Is it person A's responsibility?

 

[wotan]

I particularly hate the advert that goes like this,,,

"I was installing a fire alarm..., My employers gave me the wrong sort of ladder..... I dislocated my right shoulder, crushed my ribs and was off work for weeks etc etc"

Why did he use the wrong ladder then?
One point that's wrong on the advert is the fact that he's up the ladder without anyone or anything footing the ladder. He himself has broken several H&S rules.

They gave him the wrong type of ladder, if he knew that why did he not declare it unsafe?
any work above 6 foot should be carried out from an access tower.
I would have thrown his claim out, and charged him with hospital expences.

Wotan

 

[wotan]

And the other silly moo....I was walking through reception and the floor was wet, there were no warning signs...
she by her own admission, noticed the floor was wet, before she slipped..

Case dismissed whinging Moo..

 

[Trazor]

What if some advice you gave on here, led to an injury, food for thought.

 

[wotan]

The boxes were done up with plastic strapping which often gets left on the floor....say's she who is wearing high heels, and carrying a box which she can't see over.

Marching orders, get a Polish replacement....
No wonder we are paying well over the odds for insurance, when daft awards are made for trivial self imposed accidents.

Whinge over..

Wotan

 

[big-all]

compensation has several elements
loss off earning loss off well being compensation for pain and suffering
and compensation to make the situation whole again

no win no fee can still cost you money they can make you buy an insurance to cover there cost then refuse to take it to court and your left with all sorts off cost but as promised you have no fee but all the other costs

they are sharks so beware

they will say there cost wont come out off the settlement true but you have to pay the insurance they can add on serch fees travel costs and all sorts because its only there fees you dont have to pay

 

[dextrous]

And the other silly moo....I was walking through reception and the floor was wet, there were no warning signs...
she by her own admission, noticed the floor was wet, before she slipped..

Case dismissed whinging Moo..

Am sure I've mentioned on here the story of the school caretaker who mopped a floor (after school hours as part of his general duties), went away to get rid of mop and bucket, came back and slipped. Sued the school successfully fo several thousand because he hadn't been told to use "caution, wet floor" signs .

 

[LastMagicBean]

Suppose further that person B now has to do additional work to cover for person A's absence.

Person 'C' could share the workload...........

 

[heatingman]

i think the alarm scenario is that the employer would have been unable to prove that they had given their employee correct and adequate H & S training covering ladders and working at heights. Its just unfortunate that sometimes "ignorance" does work in the eyes of the law. Of course the guy knew what he was doing was wrong, but pressure from manager would have made him do it. "we've done it like that for years, if you want a job get on with it" type of attitude.
For the employed guys, if you have signed and had training regarding a safety issue/proccedure and become a cropper by ignoring said advice your claim will be contested all the way as in your employers eyes you will be culpable.