The Law Blog

Archive for the ‘Health & Safety’ Category

Research has shown that 16 per cent of drivers would rather accept a £60 fine and three-point penalty if convicted of speeding rather than attend the National Speed Awareness course to avoid prosecution.

The findings published by MoneySupermarket (click here to visit the site), Britain’s leading price comparison, highlight that it is not a given that all motorists would prefer to go on the educational scheme, even if it means paying a fine, having three points added to their license and stumping up an average of 17 per cent more in car insurance premiums as a result of being found guilty of speeding.

In total, 72 per cent would take up a place on the National Speed Awareness if caught out and MoneySupermarket’s Pete Harrison, who is a keen advocate of extensively searching around for the cheapest car insurance deals, said: “It’s no surprise the course option is proving to be the most popular with motorists.

“The National Speed Awareness Course was introduced to give motorists caught speeding the opportunity to re-educate themselves on the effects and dangers involved.

“By attending the course, motorists will avoid the three points on their license and the £60 fine providing it is either the first time they are caught, or that haven’t taken the course within the last three years.

“Insurers clearly take a dim view on policy holders who speed and this is reflected in higher car insurance premiums. Motorists can expect to see their premiums rise by around 17 per cent on average for the first offence, and this will continue to increase the more convictions you get. For repeat offenders, some insurers may even refuse to cover you.
“Not only are motorists who flout the law by speeding risking the lives of other road users and pedestrians as well as their own, they also run the risk of adding to the existing headache of sky high car insurance premiums.”

Over half (53 per cent) of those involved in the survey view the course as a way of stopping their car insurance premiums from increasing by nearly a fifth and 14 per cent think they can learn something from the programme, which is determined to drive down the number of road traffic accidents in the UK and increase awareness of the need for motorists to be more responsible.

Harrison, a car insurance expert, added: “My advice to motorists concerned by the cost of their car insurance is to always scour the market for the best deal for your circumstances.”

Photo Courtesy of Johnny Grim via Flickr

A burglar in the US who was arrested by New York police after breaking into a pizza restaurant, has been charged with criminal mischief. More importantly, the man escaped a fate far worse than prison: a fall into a hot-fat fryer.

Forty-six-year-old Timothy Cipriani, of New York, USA, decided to visit the nearby Paesano’s pizza joint on Friday. Unlike most other visitors to the restaurant, Mr Cipriani chose to enter the building by climbing a tree, gaining access to the roof and climbing through an air duct. Notwithstanding the deliciousness of pizza, Mr Cipriani had entered the building in this manner not because he was hungry, but because he intended to burgle the place. Unfortunately for Mr Cipriani, the air duct did not properly cater to his specific requirements.

After becoming stuck in the air duct, Mr Cipriani found himself dangling over a hot-fat fryer, which had been in use throughout the day and was therefore still very warm. Fearful of his imminent deep-fat death, the bungling burglar began to scream out in terror. John Risko, the general manager of the restaurant, was alerted to Mr Cipriani’s plight when a fire alarm was sounded in the building. Arriving at the restaurant, Mr Risko was stunned when he saw Mr Cipriani wedged in the air duct.

Mr Risko said: “I come in, turn off the alarms, take a peek into the kitchen and see this guy’s legs dangling out of the hood over the stove in the kitchen. I just started laughing.”

Lorenzo Scavio, the restaurant’s owner, added: “As he was coming down the hood, when he got to the bottom, he stepped on one of the pipes. The pipes burst, which triggered the alarm. These are tied to the fire suppression system over the stove and fryers.

“He was actually lucky that he tripped the fire system. If he didn’t, he would have probably died in there. I think he’s out of his mind. It doesn’t make any sense. We don’t keep any money in the store and you can’t pull the equipment out. What was he trying to rob? It just doesn’t make sense at all.”

Perhaps Mr Cipriani was hungry? Whatever the reason for targeting Paesano’s, the criminal was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. In theory, accident claims could be brought against restaurant owners who fail to erect adequate signage warning the public of hazards. Signage to discourage people from climbing into an air duct and dangling over a hot-fat fryer, however, is probably not necessary.

According to the Health and Safety Executive, 121,430 workplace injuries were reported under RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995) in 2009/2010. Despite this seemingly high figure, which equates to an injury rate of 473 per 100,000 workers, a new study by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has suggested that many Britons are reluctant to bring personal injury claims against their employers after suffering workplace accidents.

APIL discovered that a quarter of surveyed workers would refuse to file accident claims against their bosses in the event of being seriously injured whilst using defective or dangerous equipment at work. Muiris Lyons, the president of APIL, which is a not-for-profit organisation, suggested that there are multiple reasons why employees might shy away from making personal injury claims in the workplace.

Ms Lyons said: “Many of us may have suffered an injury through no fault of our own at work but in the workplace there seems to be a real reluctance to make a claim in cases of negligence.” Explaining some of the reasons why employees could feel reluctant to pursue damages in the courts, Ms Lyons added: “Most employees will have built a rapport with their employer over a period of time and if a case of negligence occurs in the workplace, some individuals could feel embarrassed or think that there may be a stigma attached if they are seen making a claim against their employer. Some may fear that if they make a claim, their career may be put at risk or that they might be looked upon as a trouble maker.”

Ms Lyons also highlighted the negative public perception of the personal injury claims industry, which has evolved over many decades to provide justice to millions of people who have been injured or made ill as a result of somebody else’s negligence.

Ms Lyons aptly stated: “There seems be a perception that those making personal injury negligence claims are taking advantage of an unfortunate situation. And yet the reality is that the negative stigma attached to individuals making a claim if they’re injured in the workplace. is an unfair one.”

Unfortunately, inaccurate or misleading media reports on health and safety laws and the recent quest by Lord Young to ban or restrict personal injury law firms from advertising to potential claimants, have served to shape the public perception of a ‘compensation culture.’ Until this false and unnecessary stigma is changed, many accident victims in Britain will continue to suffer in silence.

Photo Courtesy of mag3737 via Flickr

Despite there being a number of regulations in place for the safety of employees, lifting accidents still remain a common occurrence within many work environments. If you are involved in an accident it is important to look at all the factors involved in your injury, as although you may think it was your fault, that may not be the case.

Recently a highly experienced and trained nurse was injured whilst bathing a patient. Using a mechanical hoist for the patient, she then had to manoeuvre the hoist forks under the bath, and in doing so, received a jerking injury to her back.

In trial she alleged a defect with the hoist, alongside an absence of risk assessment, but as the nurse had carried out the duty previously, the judge decided she should have been aware of the plinth it collided with.

However, in appeal it was found the employers should have conducted a risk assessment to reduce the risks to their lowest level. When it appeared that there was a risk of injury, the employer was left to show they had taken some positive steps to reduce any risks. As there were many alterations they could have done to the plinth to make it safer, the employers were therefore found liable to the injured nurse, although she also accepted some responsibility for her actions.

Often solicitors find that an employer is still responsible even when the injured party aren’t aware of their rights. One office desk worker who had pre-existing back problems, neglected to inform his employer thinking it was none of their business. One day he was requested to help move some files to an office which was on another floor, bending and stretching to fill boxes, then move them up a flight of stairs without receiving manual handling training in this post. Later that night he started to suffer back pains.

The injured man found himself unable to return to work, but as it was a pre-existing problem, he believed he was prevented from claiming. However, he discovered as he had not had any manual handling training in this job and no risk assessment had been carried out, he was able to successfully receive compensation, despite some deductions as a result of his failure to inform his employers of what had previously been quite a serious back problem.

If your employer should ever expect you to do heavy lifting then it is imperative you receive suitable training. Furthermore your employer should risk assess to reduce the incidences of manual handling to a minimum, and use suitable lifting equipment if available.

However, should you find yourself injured in an accident at work, it is wise to seek appropriate legal advice from a specialist work injury lawyer to see if you may be able to claim compensation.