0800 0 224 224
Find your local office
01 April 2008
The claimant, a home care worker, employed by the council, was injured while using a ramp at a service user’s home. The ramp had been manufactured, supplied and installed by the NHS long before the user had council care services.
Although this was just a County Court decision and is not binding, it is an excellent summary of what constitutes an “ accident” under the relevant so-called “no fault” liability conventions.
The opening paragraph of the facts in this case just says: “The cow’s escape was extraordinary”. However, from that gripping start, it becomes a very sad case.
A Mr Smith had complained to the police that his partner had been threatening to kill him.
The claimants were five bus drivers who were assaulted while working for the defendants between 2001 and 2004. The buses they drove did not have a protective anti-assault screen fitted.
The afternoon before this accident, the MET office issued an emergency gale warning. The next morning there were 80-90mph gales. The claimant’s HGV truck turned over. He brought claims against his employer and the tractor owner, both under PUWER 1998.
This was an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had decided that the widow of a man who had committed suicide could recover damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 in respect of financial losses attributable to the suicide.
The claimant was exposed to excessive noise with the defendants from 1976 to 1982. He was never provided with hearing protection. After 1995, he was not exposed to loud noise.
Department for Work and Pensions news release (EMP-070) issued by The Government News Network on 1 April 2008.