Blog - Carrs Solicitors, Work Injury Specialist Lawyers

Crosswinds and Safety Culture - LGV Employees' Rights in Bad Weather

Wed, 09 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0000

During Storm Eustace on 18th February 2022, the UK’s National Highways and Met office issued "Red" Warnings for wind for South West England and South Wales from 7 am to 12 pm and for South East England from 10 am to 3 pm. This was the first Red Alert since the system was brought in on 1st October 2007.

What is the Yellow /Amber/Red warning system?

The system was created in response to the carnage of "Windy Thursday" on 18 January 2007 when Storm Kyril caused 9 fatalities, including 5 relating to vehicle use. Furthermore, the storm caused 60 serious road incidents, including 48 high sided vehicles being blown over on the Trunk Road Network alone. Behind these statistics, there was untold pain and loss.

The consequences of the weather as an LGV driver

I recall well the arguments by a fleet operator after the day of Storm Kyril, that scores of other LGV operators had sent their drivers out on that day as well, the insinuation of “driver error” because drivers must always drive according to the conditions they face. My client was on a spinal injuries ward for 9 months and not in any position to explain the shock of being caught by a sudden crosswind gusting to 80mph in a high sided vehicle.

When something goes wrong, it’s often blamed on the driver, even though a mentality of sending drivers out in all conditions is rewarded and any resistance is discouraged.

It has been said that “Culture Trumps Everything.” For LGV drivers the safety culture of the organisation they belong to goes out with them in all conditions, while the formal risk assessments go on a different kind of hard drive altogether.

My 2007 case succeeded on the basis of evidence that emerged that an investigation report had been doctored and witness evidence from colleagues on the custom and practice of the organisation.

The Red Alert issued on 18th February 2022 meant that all goods vehicle drivers ought to have left the road network for the areas affected until the risk was reduced to Amber level when it was deemed safe to drive with extra care.

Hopefully, Hauliers didn’t expect drivers of high sided vehicles to go out in those conditions. If they did, blaming the driver would be a non-starter.

If you need legal advice or you have been injured in a work-related road accident, contact Carrs solicitors to discuss how we can help you exercise your rights.

Why the self-employed shouldn't be excluded

Thu, 27 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0000

A report published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in August 2014 showed that 4.6 million people are currently self-employed, which is the equivalent of 15 per cent of the overall workforce. Not only is this the highest percentage since records began in 1971, it's also a two per cent increase on 2008 (prior to the financial crisis), when 13 per cent of the working population were sole traders.

A study, released by the Recruitment & Employment Confederation and KPMG, suggested that the number of temporary/contract workers securing jobs in the UK continues to rise. Indeed, the research published on November 7th 2014, found that the volume of contract staff billings has now increased for 18 consecutive months.

For those self-employed or sub-contracting workers who suffer a workplace injury it's important to note that they still operate within the protection and basic obligations of the law.

One-fifth of all UK-based self-employed workers were building sector traders in 2014. This industry is also renowned for its hazardous nature, with statistics from the Health and Safety Executive confirming that construction accounted for 10 per cent of all reported injuries in 2013-14, despite only making up five per cent of the nation's overall workforce.

With so many building contractors working independently or for differing employers, different legal principles apply and it's important that you know where to turn when specialist legal advice is required.

With vast experience of injury claims from construction workers we are very well versed in the particular legal duties, evidential sources and have the capacity and experience to understand the workings of complex construction sites and other industrial working environments.

Another key sector with many self-employed workers exposed to risk is the road haulage industry.

The government has recently tried to pass an amendment to The Deregulation Bill to exempt most self-employed people from the protection of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This followed an attempt by the government to take up a recommendation from Professor Ragnar Lofstedt's 2011 report 'Reclaiming Health and Safety For All' that self-employed people whose work does not pose a risk to the health and safety of others should be exempted to the extreme of proposing that all self-employed persons should be exempted.

The House of Lords, quite rightly in my view, recently rejected this proposed amendment and the bill has been progressing through the committee stage of the legislative process before further amendments can be considered by both houses.

It is to be hoped that a resolution is found that continues to deter unsafe working practices and that does not shift the financial burden of caring for and supporting those injured through the negligence of other self-employed workers on to the state - when there is a perfectly viable insurance solution in place.

Whether you are self-employed and have been injured through your work or you have been injured as a result of a self-employed party, we are able to offer expert advice and representation at no cost to you, often with solutions that may not be obvious.

For free advice and home visits please ring 0800 587 0746, for a confidential discussion.

Trends in Falls From Height in the Workplace

Tue, 17 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0000

A number of new case reports have been revealed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that highlight an alarming trend of falls from height in workplaces in recent weeks.

As of last week, out of the eight cases appearing in the HSE press release section for June 2014, seven of them were related to falls from height, with one resulting in death.

Falls from height are still the biggest cause of workplace casualties in the UK. In 2012/13, there was a total of 46 fatal injuries sustained from falls from height, and 2,522 major injuries. As such, comprehensive investigations of working environments and conditions are requisite in order to ensure the safety of all employees.

What recent cases bring to light, however, is an increasing laxity with which employers are treating vital health and safety requirements of hazardous workplaces, particularly in the manufacturing and construction industries.

There has been an increased rate of STFs (Slips, Trips and Falls) - something that previous reports have observed to be annually consistent. The HSE has pinpointed a seasonal increase in falls from height during spring and summer, when more outdoor labour is carried out nationwide.

Negligence extends beyond the conventional professional relationship. Third parties have been found liable in recent cases where materials in trade and installations have been made under false pretences, including one director in Shropshire who was convicted for twelve months for the sale of pre-used roofing sheets containing white asbestos. The director's failure to ensure the quality of the products he was trading caused the death of a worker in Frankley, Worcestershire.

Another case involved an anonymous 63-year-old male who fell through some cement sheeting while attempting to repair a leak. The serious injury incurred left the worker needing speech therapy and weekly physiotherapy, even after his extensive stay in a hospital to repair the immediate damage.

Worryingly, the frequency of employer negligence cases in these more hazardous sectors appears to be on the rise. The HSE's findings show that though the average number of cases per annum between 2007 and 2012 is 60, there were 97 cases over 2012/13. Accounting for this spike is speculative, but a greater awareness of employee rights may be inferred judging by the rising level of prosecutions in parallel to the less drastic increase in injuries.

The good news is that this indicates a seismic shift in the employee-employer relationship. We believe that all employees should know their rights, both professional and civil, and that violations of those rights by negligent employers - especially in settings where this negligence can sometimes prove fatal - should not go unaccounted for.

If you've been involved in a fall from height at work, or any other work-related injury, please don't hesitate to contact us to discuss making a compensation claim.

Are Companies Taking the UK’s Asbestos Laws Seriously?

Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0000

Asbestos was completely banned by the UK government in 1999, yet the potentially life-threatening substance is still causing huge problems some 15 years later.

Laws to restrict its use were first introduced in the 1980s, with the importing and use of blue (crocidolite) and brown (amosite) asbestos being prohibited in 1985, however, Britain was much slower to sanction a blanket ban than other countries around the world. Legislation has been updated since 1999, with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 being the most notable reform to date. The law was again tweaked in 2012 in order to bring the UK in line with an EU Directive.

Of course, many buildings erected during the 20th century still contain asbestos, and there are clear rules in place to ensure it is handled safely. In many cases, licensed professionals need to be called in to remove it. Although the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides guidelines for businesses to follow, there have been countless examples of companies failing to abide by the nation's asbestos laws.

Just by browsing through the HSE's press release section, we can clearly see that a large number of firms are being prosecuted for breaching asbestos regulations. One recent example involved Battersea-based building company Redwood Contractors, which was fined £10,000 during a hearing at Reading Magistrates' Court. It emerged that the business did not highlight the known presence of asbestos insulating board at a Berkshire warehouse, putting workers in danger of exposure.

HSE inspector Karen Morris confirmed that an asbestos survey had been carried out, but the findings were not communicated to workers - something that she believes is a common problem in the construction industry. Just a few weeks before this hearing, Bristol-based property developer Da Vinci Developments was fined £9,800 for exposing employees to asbestos while working on a Marks and Spencer shop. On this occasion, workers had been breaking up asbestos insulation board as they attempted to demolish walls and ceilings. A statutory survey had not been carried out beforehand.

With so many organisations flouting Britain's asbestos laws, is it inevitable that more compensation claims will be made in the future?

Asbestos causes a multitude of debilitating diseases, including mesothelioma, lung cancer, non-malignant pleural disease and asbestosis, and these can take effect up to 40 or 50 years after somebody has been exposed to the deadly fibres. There has been a sharp upturn in the number of cases being brought forward in the last few years, as people are increasingly aware of their right to make a claim.

According to the HSE, an average of four plumbers, six electricians and eight joiners die from diseases caused by asbestos exposure every single week in the UK. The regulator also warned that the families of construction staff who have been working with asbestos can be affected too, as the dust and fibres are transported in their loved one's clothes.

Insurers can be reluctant to pay compensation to people who have contracted one of these devastating diseases, which is why more claimants are turning to solicitors for help. At Carrs Solicitors, we specialise in work-related injury and occupational illness cases, including those involving diseases that can be traced back to asbestos exposure.

Do you think you are eligible to make a claim? Please get in touch for some free advice.

Developments in the Law Relating to Mesothelioma

Thu, 15 May 2014 00:00:00 +0000

The Act is designed to provide a means for compensating the victims of an occupational illness described by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision of Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd and Knowsley MBC v. Willmore in 2011as "a hideous disease that is inevitably fatal” when the relevant insurer cannot be traced.

The Act provides for a pool of insurance company funds to be made available for those victims who are able to establish that they developed Mesothelioma as a result of unlawful exposure to inhaled asbestos caused by an identified Defendant who either is impecunious, often no longer trading and for whom insurance cannot be traced.

Controversially however the Act only provides for the mesothelioma suffer to receive 80% of the value of the compensation amount that they would have received had the matter gone to Court and only applies to victims of the disease first diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012. It does not cover other types of asbestos related illness or indeed any other uninsured occupational illness or injury.

The 80% provision is seen as a compromise that the insurance industries parliamentary backers were prepared to agree to.

This is particularly harsh to the victims and family members of those affected by this illness which typically has a 30-40 year latency period.

In other words the average mesothelioma victim in 2014 was likely to have had unlawful exposure to inhaled asbestos from the early 1970s onwards.

In 1969 two pieces of legislation were passed that had particular significance; one being the Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance Act and the second being the Asbestos Regulations.

It does therefore appear particularly unfair to the victims that the insurance industry which has had the capacity to profit significantly from the inception of compulsory employers liability insurance cover for 4½ decades, is now largely perceived itself as a "victim” in some sense whose commercial interests have been weighed against the desperate needs of the very parties whose interest the 1969 legislature was intended to protect.

According to the Office for National Statistics some 2,091 persons died of mesothelioma in 2011.

Asbestos exposure is according to the Health & Safety Executive, the greatest single cause of work related deaths in the UK and the annual number of mesothelioma deaths is not expected to peak until later this decade, when it is expected to reach 2,500 per year. Up to 85% of these deaths are according to the Health & Safety Executive are believed to be occupationally related.

According to the Department for Work and Pensions the projected number of mesothelioma deaths in the UK over the next 30 years is expected to reach 56,000 to 63,000. Most of those victims are now living and unaware that they carry a fatal legacy of their exposure to asbestos. Once they are given a diagnosis there is usually a rapid deterioration in health. They will not form a lobby group and will not have any political clout. The insurance industry on the other hand is very vociferous and politically effective in protecting its shareholders interests.

For an individual diagnosed with Mesothelioma a compensation claim can improve their quality of life and remove a source of anxiety about providing for loved ones and the legal procedures for seeking compensation have recently been streamlined but it is still extremely important to seek urgently specialist legal advice.

In June 2013 the Civil Procedure Rules were amended to include a new Practice Direction in relation to mesothelioma claims, which provides practical assistance to the smooth running of these cases where time is very much of the essence. The Practice Direction provides for the Court to be able to provide an early Case Management Conference at which an interim payment of £50,000 can be made (in addition to claims to the DWP under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979.

Where liability is at issue, under the new rules the Defendant (in effect in most cases essentially the paying party being the insurance company) is required to "show cause” as to why Judgement should not be entered.

Following the Sienkiewicz case referred to above, it is no longer necessary for the mesothelioma victim to prove that their exposure to occupational inhaled asbestos fibres has 'more than doubled' the chance of developing the illness, as was previously the case but that the exposure made a material contribution to the onset of the illness on a balance of probabilities.

Where liability remains in dispute, the trial will normally take place within 16 weeks of service of the Court Claim Form. In addition, there is provision for the admission of deposition evidence given by the victim on video so that their evidence can be provided by DVD with transcript provided.

These developments should greatly assist many victims of mesothelioma in securing compensation payments at a significantly earlier stage.

Carrs Solicitors specialise in providing work related injury and occupational illness cases to include mesothelioma claims at no cost to our clients.

If you would like free advice regarding mesothelioma claims or other asbestos related industrial disease cases, we are happy to visit you and to give free advice either during or out of office hours.

Don’t get mugged by an insurer…use a solicitor!

Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0000

The provocative new Law Society campaign under the above title has caused quite a stir. The insurance industry has complained to the Advertising Standards Agency saying that the campaign is 'defamatory and misleading' whilst in the meantime insurers own legal representatives are said to be 'saddened' by the initiative.

The Law Society' attempt to bluntly spell out to injured parties that insurers who deal directly with injured parties who claim against their policyholders, without the involvement of independent legal representation, frequently fail to recover the compensation they are entitled to is to be applauded.

The Law Society makes the point that those who use a solicitor, tend to fare significantly better. In the past insurers have tried to use their own statistics to argue that they pay more compensation when dealing directly with unrepresented claimants but they have been notoriously reluctant to disclose their data or methodology.

Insurers see no problem in trying to avoid the claimant having either medical or legal advice and have recently been censured for selling claims against their own policyholders. The number of deserving claims that insurers reject altogether is another factor. Certainly in our experience approximately a quarter of all claims that we succeed with follow complete denials of liability by the insurer. Furthermore many of the claims in which we succeed involved winning technical arguments in relation to allegations of 'contributory negligence' which further affects the amount of the payment.

This is not to say that employers liability insurance claims handlers are not necessarily well intentioned (although this should not always be assumed in view of the counter compensation culture) but those most in need of legal representation are often the last to realise it. Insurance companies are duty bound to protect their own policyholders and shareholders' interests, they owe a duty of confidentiality to the employer and have no legal duty or incentive to protect the injured party's interests.

In employers liability injury claims the injured worker is a lay person usually under significant financial pressure and worried about antagonising their employer to start with. Where the claimant acts in person his economic disadvantage is compounded by his lack of legal knowledge when dealing with an insurance company professional who negotiates compensation payments down on a daily basis. To suggest the clear conflict of interest does not create a systemic bias against the claimant is ludicrous.

Try to imagine a scenario where the insurance industry in a drive to reduce costs laid off all of its professional claims department's staff, loss adjusters and legal advisors and delegated the task of determining claims to the claimant's professional representative.

If that was to happen the Insurers Industry's (CEO) 'survivors group' would have to seek refuge at No 10 again faster than you can say 'victimhood.'

Author: John Carr has over 18 years experience in employer's liability injury claims and has helped thousands of people claim compensation for accidents at work, occupational disability or industrial disease. You can find him on Google+