Liability for Accidents at Work - A New Defense?

By Philip Youdan

The Court of Appeal has provided support to employers wanting to use arguments of foreseeability and employee conduct to defend prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (“the Act”). This could have wide ranging ramifications for businesses as it offers a defence that has not historically met with favour in the courts.

The Facts

HTM Limited (“HTM”) provided traffic management services to contractors carrying out resurfacing works on the A66. Lighting was provided from mobile towers that extended to a maximum height of 9.1m. Power cables carrying 20,000 volts ran across the road hanging as low as 7.5m. Tragically two employees of HTM died when a fully extended tower that they were moving came into contact with one of the overhead power cables.

HTM’s position was that the tower should have been lowered prior to being moved in accordance with the training provided and instructions on the tower that made this clear. As a result they wished to adduce evidence at trial that the accident was the result of the employees own actions and that it could not be foreseen that they would act as they did. The HSE argued that:

• Forseeability played no part in determining whether there had been a breach of duty under the Act; and
• As a consequence of regulation 21 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (“Regulation 21”) HTM could not use their employees own conduct as a defense.

Foreseeability

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument raised by the HSE, which, if accepted, would have meant that even the most unlikely and unforeseeable of accidents could have created a breach of duty. The court stated that a defendant (to a charge under sections 2, 3 or 4 of the Act) could not be prevented from putting forward evidence of the likelihood of the risk occurring in support of its case that it had taken all reasonable steps to eliminate the risk.

Conduct

Regulation 21 provides that an act or default by an employee cannot be used by an employer as a defence in any criminal proceedings.

After examining the law, the Court of Appeal found against the HSE on the basis that employee conduct went to the issue of “reasonable practicability” under the regulations. The court held that reasonable practicability does not operate as a “defense” so that Regulation 21 had no application to it. The practical effect of this decision was that HTM was entitled to put forward evidence to show that what happened was purely the fault of one or both of the employees who died.

Practical Implications

The decision in R v HTM Ltd will need to be carefully considered by all employers facing prosecution under the Act after an accident at work. Ultimately, there are likely to be only a relatively small number of occasions when an employer can convince the Court that the accident was entirely unforeseeable and/or purely the fault of an employee and that everything had been done to prevent the accident from happening.

The business community is particularly susceptible to disputes that arise from trading, internal relationships and from competitive and infrastructure arrangements. When you ask Cripps Harries Hall LLP to resolve any such dispute, our aim is to do so in an innovative and practical way. We regularly handle disputes relating to: commercial agreements; partnerships; shares; warranties on the sale of businesses or goods; intellectual property; civil claims based on fraud or dishonesty, including all associated freezing orders and other protective measures; defamation; internal company disputes; claims relating to insurance policies; claims against directors ; claims relating to health and safety.

How Much Compensation Money from an Ankle Injury?

By Carolyn Clayton

Have you fallen over on an uneven pavement and twisted your ankle? Maybe you had an accident at work and damaged your ankle quite severely. Would you like to know what compensation you might be entitled too?

The amount you could be entitled to would be in the region of £3,000 to £40,000, depending on the extent of the damage. Most ankle injuries are worth less that £12,500 but there are severe cases where the amount would in the region of £29,000 to £40,750. These cases are of a transmalleolar fracture of the ankle with extensive soft-tissue damage which resulted in deformity with the risk of any future injury to the leg might mean the need for a below the knee amputation.

Severe ankle injuries where there is significant residual disability in the form of ankle instability and severely limited ability to walk and an extensive period of treatment or a lengthy period in plaster or where pins and plates have been inserted, the amount of compensation awarded could be in the region of £18,325 to £29,000.

Moderate fractures of the knee where there have been ligamentous tears which might cause difficulty in walking on uneven ground, irritation from metal plates and scarring, the amount of compensation would be in the region of £7,625 to £15,500.

For less serious knee injuries the amount of compensation would be determined by whether a complete recovery has been made or if at all a complete recovery is imminent and the possibility of later osteoarthritis, the amount would be in the region of up to £8,150. If the recovery is within a year the amount would not exceed £3,300.

If any of these describes your injury and you believe the accident was not your fault then you should claim compensation. More than 2.5 million people in the UK have accidents each year, and very few claim compensation for their injuries. Seeking compensation for pain and suffering your civil and legal right. Whatever type of accident, as long as you’re not responsible then you are entitled to compensation. These people that have suffered from injuries due to no fault of their own deserve compensation for their suffering and with UK law the liable party must compensate the injured person for their loss of suffering. The financial loss could be due to loss of earnings or due to damages to their car or any other personal item. In some extreme cases the loss of a job and whole way of life might be lost. Some people may have to adapt their homes to deal with the injury permanently. Also stress depression and anxiety are all illnesses that may not have occurred if the accident had never happened. This is why it is ethically right that people should have the opportunity to claim compensation for their injuries however mild or severe they maybe.

“Conditional fee agreements” or better known as the “no win no fee” was introduced in 1995 when legal aid was still available for personal injury case. The reason it was introduced was to give the people with incomes above legal aid eligibility limits the chance to fund personal injury litigation. People whose income was just about the limit were still finding it difficult to pay for a solicitor. This “no win no fee” agreement eventually became available to fund most civil cases and the consequence of this was that legal aid was abolished 2000. Contrary to popular belief there has not been a compensation boom, in fact the number of claims has dropped since this time.

So if you have damaged your ankle and have suffered as a result, you should be seeking out a accident claims solicitor. You want to find one that offers free impartial advice and one that has years of experience dealing with accident claims.

Accident claims for the UK market contact Accident Consult for your no obligation consultation. They are experts in dealing with http://www.accidentconsult.com/articles/showarticles/

ClaimCalculator/1/AnkleInjuries.html Ankle Injuries . Free to republish this article providing this resource box remains intact with a working hyperlink to our site.