Personal Injury Law Blogs

Chemicals company heavily fined over acid burns at work

An international chemical company has been heavily fined after a pipe split at a plant resulted in acid burns to the faces of three workers.

Polimeri Europa UK Limited was sentenced on 29 November 2013 after being prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive for failing to ensure that it had taken reasonably practicable steps to protect its employees from coming to harm as a result of workplace practices. The firm was, as a result, ordered to pay almost £140,000 in costs and fines by the Southampton Crown Court.

The incident occurred on 13 December 2011 at Polimeri Europa UK Ltd’s plant in Hythe, Southampton. On the day in question the three workers – who were contractors working at the site – were engaged in the course of their employment when a pipe carrying sulphuric acid split, catapulting the corrosive liquid almost sixty feet into the air. This acid then landed on the contractors, causing burns to their face. However, quick action on the part of workers and other staff members – including showering on site after the accident and quick treatment from a first aid kit – ensured that the injuries to the workers were more limited than they may necessarily have been otherwise.

The Health and Safety Executive were notified of the accident and subsequently investigated. This investigation found that the pipework carrying the sulphuric acid had badly corroded and that this had caused the split in the pipeline. The HSE further identified that there had been health and safety breaches by the company, including a failure to properly investigate the corroded pipework over the preceding years because of concerns by the company that other pipework carrying other potentially hazardous liquids should be investigated first. The HSE therefore recommended that the company be prosecuted for the health and safety failings.

The case came before the Southampton Crown Court on 29 November 2013. Polimeri Europa UK Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2 and s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £120,000, as well as being ordered to pay the prosecution’s full costs at £18,023.

HSE Inspector Sally Morgan stated after the sentencing: “These workers received acid burns in an incident that could have been prevented. Polimeri Europa UK Ltd should have ensured that their pipework, much of it over 50 years old, was subject to a thorough and timely inspection regime… High hazard sites must ensure that there are rigorous monitoring procedures in place for such systems.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented on the case: “Organisations in the United Kingdom have obligations to comply with health and safety legislation – if they fail to do so they may not only be subject to criminal prosecution and potentially heavy fines but they may also find that their employees are injured by their failings.”

Redmans Solicitors offer employment law advice and are unfair dismissal solicitors

Claims Portal data indicates teething problems

The Claims Portal was introduced to England and Wales in April 2010 by the Ministry of Justice in order to provide support during the claims process of claims valued at lower than £10,000. The use of electronic communications tool was further expanded on 31 July 2013 to include Employer’s Liability (EL) and Public Liability (PL) claims valued up to £25,000 as part of Lord Jackson’s reforms of the personal injury laws.  Claims which are contested or those valued at over £25,000 are not handled via the Claims Portal, but the normal process. Within the portal legal costs are capped at £900 for claims between £1,000 and £10,000 and at £1,600 for those between £10,000 and £25,000.

The portal is a not-for-profit organisation is headed by 8 non-executive directors representing solicitors and the insurance industry. It is intended as a secure repository for information relating to claims where solicitors, insurers and compensators contribute and keep track of a claims process remotely. The resource’s extension was meant to streamline the process, enabling ease of communication, greater accuracy in claims and reducing the processes costs. The extension of the portals use reduced the time insurers have to reply to a claim from 90 to 30 days for Employer’s Liability claims and 40 days for Public Liability claims.

On 17 October the Claims Portal released its quarterly update to its Executive Dashboard Management Information; it’s first since the extension of the portals use. The data suggests that there may be some teething problems with the new system.

The data shows that in anticipation of Lord Jackson’s reforms to the system coming into effect there was a 2% increase in the numbers claims year on year for July, but a 15% decrease year on year for August. This initial data suggests that Jackson’s reforms are going some way to ‘combatting compensation culture’ by reducing the number of claims, though it is still early days for the new process.

During August, the first month of the new process there were 718 Claim Notification Forms (CNF’s) entered into the Claims Portal, which included industrial disease, industrial accident and public liability claims. Of these only 425 were still on the system at the end of the month. With roughly 40% of the claims being withdrawn there seems to have been some confusion regarding the new process.

Of the 143 EL claims involving disease 105 remained in the system at the end of August one claim was dropped due to an incomplete CNF, one was too complex for the system, 2 claims were withdrawn, 4 were duplicate claims, 2 required further information and 27 for other reasons.

There were 200 EL claims involving accidents in August; one due to an incomplete CNF, one was too complex for the process, 9 claims were withdrawn, one required interim payment for a child, one required further investigation and 26 were duplicate claims meaning 39% of the claims entered on the system broke down in some way.

There was a similar claims failure rate for public liability accident claims in August, with 375 being entered and 124 leaving the process; 33% of those entered. Of these one was due to an incomplete CNF, 3 were below the £1,000 base limit, one was too complex for the process, 9 claims were withdrawn, one had an offer withdrawn, one required further investigation, 4 failed to acknowledge the CNF on time, 26 due to duplicate claims and 78 existed to other reasons.

By far the largest number of claims left the process due to other reasons, which is not very enlightening. It would be helpful if the reasons were given in more detail so that the issues with the process could be ironed out. The second most popular reason for a claim existing the process was due to a duplication of a claim. This is an issue that the Claims Portal itself should really have addressed as it should have made the process more transparent. As those personal injury solicitors and insurers involved in the process become more familiar with it this proportion should decline.  [Note that finding a personal injury lawyer in the US is a separate matter to finding one in the UK or indeed in parts of the UK], There also are claims which were not eligible to be entered into the process and there are some cases which were entered from before the 31 July start date in error.

Administrative errors are bound to happen when a new process is being adopted, but the high proportion of claims leaving the process suggest that those involved could use some more familiarizing with the system and process. We await the release of the next quarterly update to see whether involved parties have got up to speed.

About the author

Paul Rooney are a leading personal injury solicitors firm based in North West England who are up to speed with the new Claims Portal process and industry developments, so as to provide the best service and outcomes for their clients.

Abuse in Public Services

Shocking news stories give the impression that abuse from public care workers is frighteningly commonplace. However, a report by the Winnipeg government says that the majority of abuse involving older adult victims comes from family members. Similarly, the United States based non-profit organization Do Something says that more than two thirds of child abuse occurs within the family. Despite reforms over the years though, abuse by care workers in a public role is still a very serious problem, and everyone should be aware of how to spot it.

Children

A report by the United Kingdom based charity NSPCC found that children were very unlikely to be abused by child minders, and by comparison, were far more likely to be abused by teachers (although family members and family friends and associates were far more likely still). Additionally, Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft asserts that children are “100 times” more at risk of abuse by teachers than priests.

Relative to the above categories, child abuse from health care professionals is minimal.

Elders and Vulnerable Adults

Health care workers abuse the elderly more often than they target children, although older people tend to have more contact with these workers than other demographics. A UK government (National Health Service) report suggested that in abuse of ‘vulnerable adults,’ 29 percent of those abused were victims of the health care staff. A higher number were abused in care homes than in hospitals.

For both older adults and children, neglect is by far the most common type of abuse, accounting for between two thirds and three quarters of cases. Physical abuse is next for both groups. It is closely matched by sexual abuse in children; sexual abuse of the elderly is rare. When it comes to abuse by public workers though, neglect is more likely to be a problem for elders than children.

Spotting abuse

Signs of abuse are similar in children and vulnerable adults. Along with physical signs — particularly regularly occurring injuries — victims will become withdrawn, quieter, and less likely to enjoy things as they did before. They may become angry or emotional and require increased or decreased attention from others. Their diet and appetite may change, and in the case of sexual abuse, they could become less sexually comfortable, or more overtly sexual and sexually aggressive. Nightmares, new physical habits, and strange reactions to the mention or physical presence of a certain person — possibly the abuser — are warning signs of abuse. A reduction in personal hygiene, especially for elders, is another indication.

Taking action

A major reason why abuse goes unreported is fear of not being believed, or of the potential consequences an abuser may inflict. This is particularly true in cases involving public workers, because they will be seen as being in a position of authority and therefore in a better position to be believed than a vulnerable person. Looking out for signs of abuse is an essential step for monitoring loved ones, but greater transparency about abuse is also needed in order to convince people that the moral majority is on the side of victims. This can be done by making life less hazardous for whistle-blowers who report abuse, as victims will see the precedent.

 

This article was provided by Sandy Wallace, aspiring lawyer with a concern for civil rights and health. One rising, overlooked problem plaguing our society is Elder Abuse. It you witness such acts or have become victim of it yourself, Sandy recommends seeking immediate legal help.

Injury Ending Your Career? How to Get Help

(U.S. Law and Generally) Injuries that occur outside of the workplace can be very problematic for the injury victim. Employers are not responsible to maintain an employee injured outside the workplace and unemployment is contingent on the claimant’s ability to work. Even an employee who is medically cleared for light duty by a doctor may have a problem returning to work when the employer is not willing to provide light-duty job responsibilities.
Actually, employers can leave themselves vulnerable by allowing an injured employee to return to work on light duty because injured employees can easily exacerbate the injury, even in a light-duty situation. However, there are a few measures that can be utilized by the injured party.

Family Leave Act

Depending on the length of employment with the employer, an injured employee can still file for a leave if they are incapacitated to work. However, this may be an unpaid leave. Employee insurance packages may allow for short-term disability payments for a six-month period.
If the injured employee cannot return to work after six months, then long-term disability can begin if the injured party has filed for disability with the Social Security Administration. In many cases, this is the only option, but winning a disability claim can be a long and exhausting process. If the long-term prognosis is permanent disability, then it is important to file with a personal injury attorney as soon as possible to get the claim started.
Filing for Disability
Anyone can file for disability after being injured, especially if the injury will last for a significant period of time. Asset levels can be problematic if the injured party is apply for Supplemental Security Income because of the asset threshold for qualification.
Social Security claims can also be problematic because the injured party must be unable to work for six months and all claimants are routinely denied on the initial claim; contact a social security law services firm for guidance. Winning a long-term disability claim through the Social Security Administration always requires an attorney who is experienced with rules of Social Security Disability awards.

Education and Alternate Employment

Injured individuals who are capable of performing sedentary job duties can always apply for alternate career positions if a potential employer is willing to accept the applicant. EEOC laws apply to injured individuals after they are ruled disabled, so this can easily be a limited option. It may be better to look at other alternatives, such as returning to school through the various financial aid availabilities.
Attending school is not necessarily considered being able to work and may be available through the state vocational rehabilitation department. State vocational rehabilitation normally covers book and tuition and establishes with the state that the individual is injured.

Anyone who is in this employment position should always consult with an attorney who may know of other options, but a social security attorney will usually advise to file for Social Security Disability. The application also includes SSI eligibility consideration and Medicaid. The new healthcare law has made it much easier for individuals to qualify for Medicaid healthcare through a needs-based determination. Additionally, if an employee has been terminated unduly there may be a legal avenue to either reinstate the injured employee or file for other employment-related benefits like unemployment.

If the immediate physician agrees to a release to return to work, it is a high possibility that unemployment benefits may be available until the disability claim is filed. Always remember that a disability claim is a claim that the individual cannot work, and an unemployment claim is a claim that an individual can work. According to Steinger, Iscoe, and Greene, an Orlando, FL personal injury attorney team, “You have medical bills, pain, and possibly loss of work. You deserve to know your rights, your choices, and your options.”

Recycling company heavily fined after worker killed in accident at work

A Redcar-based firm has been heavily fined by the Teeside Crown Court after a worker was killed in an accident at work in 2008.

Mr Raymond Burns, 43, was working for UK Wood Recycling Limited when the accident occurred on 19 December 2008. On the day in question Mr Burns was walking between a wood pile and a skip in the yard of the firm’s site in Wilton when a load shovel pulled out from behind one of the wood piles and hit him. He was struck and run over by the vehicle and was fatally injured. He died of his injuries at the site.

The Health and Safety Executive were subsequently notified of the accident and investigated the matter. This investigation found that there were the following health and safety breaches by the company:

  • A failure to put in place segregation measures to separate vehicles and pedestrians, resulting in an unsafe system of work being implemented
  • A failure to conduct an adequate risk assessment

Prosecution of the company was therefore recommended by the HSE.

The case came before the Teesside Crown Court on 12 November 2013. UK Wood Recycling Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and was consequently fined £200,000, as well as being ordered to pay £34,000 towards the costs of bringing the prosecution.

HSE Inspector Bruno Porter stated after the judgment: “This was an entirely preventable death caused by the company failing to have a system to allow vehicles and pedestrians to move safely around each other. Ideally, this segregation is achieved by the vehicles and pedestrians having separate traffic routes.  If they share a route or area then physical barriers should be used to keep them apart, or other means of preventing moving vehicles and people being in the same place at the same time.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment law solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Businesses have a duty to comply with health and safety regulations to ensure that all reasonable measures to protect employees from injury have been taken. The Health and Safety Executive clearly felt in this instance that this particular hadn’t company hadn’t taken sufficient steps to prevent injury to its employees.”

Redmans are unfair dismissal solicitors and offer employment law advice to employees and employers

Please note that Redmans Solicitors were not involved in any capacity in the above matter

Demolitions company heavily fined after worker suffers workplace accident

A demolitions company has been heavily fined by the courts after a worker was seriously injured by an excavator bucket at work.

Mr James Wilson was on his first day working as a labourer at Bloom Plant Limited on 10 January 2011 when he suffered the horrific workplace accident. On the day in question Mr Wilson was standing at the bottom of a pile of rubble, with an excavator about to start work shifting the rubble. His colleague was attaching a four-tonne bucket to the front of an excavator machine but as he was doing so the bucket became loosened and slid down the pile of rubble. It hit Mr Wilson, causing him extensive injuries, including losing his left eye, part of his scalp, and breaking his eye socket, cheekbone, jaw, nose, left collarbone, several ribs and his left leg. He also suffered a punctured lung and damage to his lip. As a result of his injuries Mr Wilson was in a coma for two weeks and needed extensive reconstructive surgery to rebuild his damaged face. It is not currently known whether Mr Wilson has or will claim personal injury as a result of his accident.

The Health and Safety Executive subsequently investigated the accident and found that there had been a number of health and safety breaches by the company, including:

  • A failure to provide Mr Wilson with adequate information, instruction, training
  • A failure to adequately supervise Mr Wilson
  • A failure to provide suitable equipment
  • A failure to implement a safe system of work

The case came to the Nottingham Crown Court on 22 November 2013. Bloom Plant Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £40,000, as well as being ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution to the tune of £27,500.

HSE Inspector Mr Kevin Wilson stated after the court case: “Mr Wilson suffered appalling injuries and was extremely lucky to survive.   “Bloom Plant Ltd should have provided safe systems of work with better instruction, information, training and supervision, especially as the operations being carried out were known to have serious risks. Instead, Mr Wilson was put in a position of grave danger.”

Chris Hadrill, a solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Businesses have an obligation to ensure that the welfare of their employees isn’t compromised by poor workplace practices – not only can injuries at work cost businesses money in fines and civil lawsuits but they can potentially substantially affect the worker’s life itself.”

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors and settlement agreement solicitors

Types of Evidence Presented in a Car Accident Case

car accident evidenceHe said, she said.  That is the basis of any lawsuit.  Each side has a story and typically the stories differ greatly.  In the case of a car collision while eyewitness testimony is important and in some cases it can be critical in proving legal liability, there are other types of evidence that can show what really happened. Evidence is defined as any information that is helpful in forming a conclusion.  An empty gasoline can near a burned down building supports the conclusion of arson.  A broken window supports the conclusion of burglary.  In the case of a car accident, there may be testimonial evidence, real evidence, demonstrative evidence, and documentary evidence which is useful for lawsuits or for insurance claims, and if you drive a car for services as Taxi or Uber, you can also compare uber insurance quotes online to find the best option for this.  When put altogether all such evidence should provide a picture of what likely happened.

Testimonial Evidence

Testimonial evidence is simply a witness relaying what he or she saw or giving an interpretation or opinion as to what something means.  An eyewitness’ account of the events that lead to a car accident is testimonial evidence.  An accident reconstructionist’s testimony as to the meaning of skid marks is also testimonial evidence.  Prior to testimonial evidence being admissible the evidence must be shown to be reliable.  For example, someone who purports to being an expert must first demonstrate that he or she is indeed an expert on the matter about which he or she will testify.  Once a witness is permitted to testify the other side will attempt to minimize the impact of the testimonial evidence by challenging its veracity, consistency, or relevance.

Real Evidence

Real evidence is the physical evidence.  It is any object that provides information as to what occurred.  The car or particular part of a car is real evidence in a car accident case.  A gun, knife, or other weapon is real evidence in a murder case.  Real evidence can also consist of photos of the scene of the accident.  It is always a good idea to immediately take photos of not just the cars involved in the accident, but the surrounding road.  For real evidence to be admissible it must be both relevant and competent.

Demonstrative Evidence

Demonstrative evidence illustrates the testimony provided by a witness.  For example, a witness may testify that one car was “halfway” into the intersection when the other car entered the intersection and collided with the first car.  Instead of leaving it up the jurors or judge to imagine the scene, the litigant could present a map or diagram of the intersection along with the position of the two vehicles as described by the witness.  This would strengthen the impact of the witness’ testimony.

Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence is any  type of writing that supports a litigant’s position.  For example,  a police report written at the scene immediately following the accident supports each parties’ account of what happened, as well as the police officer’s observations.  Inconsistencies between what a witness says at trial compared to what is contained in the police report may negatively impact that witness’ credibility.  Documentary evidence may need to be authenticated.

Ultimately the success of a litigant in a car accident case will depend on the totality of all evidence presented.  The litigant with the most credible evidence will likely prevail.  While technical evidence from experts may objectively provide strong evidence, oftentimes for the trier of fact credibility may boil down to what makes most sense.  A sensible story usually wins over a fanciful one.

Some experts say that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  How can an attorney prepare for the possibility that a witness may make an honest mistake and give inaccurate testimony?

How PTSD Will Effect a New Generation of Soldiers

Post-traumatic stress disorder occurs after a person has been through an intense, frightening event, such as exposure to combat. Not everyone who experiences war gets PTSD, and it is unclear why some do and others do not. Circumstances that increase your chances of getting PTSD include how intense the event was, how long it lasted, how close to it you were, how much you felt in control, if you were injured, if you lost someone close to you, and how much help and support you got afterwards.

Symptoms of PTSD

Usually someone who has PTSD shows symptoms early on, but in some people, they develop over time. These symptoms break down into four categories: reliving, avoidance, negative changes, and hyper arousal.

In reliving the event, you might have flashback episodes or upsetting memories that disturb your day-to-day activities. You may have recurrent nightmares. Certain situations that remind you of the event may evoke uncomfortable reactions.

In avoidance, you avoid places, people or thoughts that trigger memories of the event. You might feel numb, detached, unable to care about anything, uninterested in normal activities, or like you have no future.

In negative changes of beliefs and feelings, your attitude towards yourself and others changes. Activities you used to enjoy no longer interest you, and you often will feel fear, guilt, or shame.

In feeling keyed-up or hyper arousal, you are unable to concentrate, easily startled, irritable, subject to bursts of anger, have trouble sleeping, and continually scan basic situations for signs of danger.

Risks of PTSD of Those Serving in Afghanistan and Iran

Former military personnel were often in harm’s way, might have seen others hurt or killed, and may have had to wound or kill others. They were away from home for long periods of time and had to remain constantly on alert. They might have been victims of military sexual trauma. All of these factors make them susceptible to PTSD.

Other factors that make service personnel particularly susceptible include prolonged deployment time, physical injury, low rank, low level of schooling, low morale, being unmarried, and having family problems. In particular, severe combat stressors, such as knowing someone killed or seriously wounded, seeing dead bodies, being shot at, being attacked or ambushed, or receiving rocket or mortar fire increase the amount of problems with PTSD.

Help for Veterans With PTSD

If you completed active service in one of the branches of the armed forces and you were not dishonorably discharged or you were deployed to a combat zone as a member of the National Guard or a reservist, you should be eligible for VA services. PTSD is treatable, and VA medical centers, Vet Centers, and community-based outpatient clinics offer treatment. Veteran’s Affairs has special PTSD programs and clinics. If you are diagnosed with PTSD, treatments include classes on dealing with PTSD symptoms, medication, and one-on-one, group, and family counseling sessions.

PTSD and the Community

PTSD can have a harmful effect on family life. Marital problems, family violence, and children with behavioral problems are common in families where one member has PTSD. Because veterans cannot easily overcome the effects of the trauma, family members may feel discouraged, hurt, and alienated. It is imperative that families seek counseling together. An ex-service person’s return to a civilian job may be easy or traumatic depending on the symptoms of PTSD, but there is usually an adjustment period.

If you feel your PTSD due to military service is severe and you are entitled to disability compensation, contact the VA’s Veterans Benefits Administration for details on applying.

 

This article was provided by Sandy Wallace, aspiring lawyer with an interest in public health. If you are suffering from PTSD, Sandy recommends seeking psychological, medical, and depending on your situation, legal counsel.

 

Road maintenance firm ordered to pay over £200,000 after motorcyclist paralysed

A Midlands-based road maintenance firm has been heavily fined after a motorcyclist was seriously injured because of health and safety failings by the company.

Mr Glynn Turner, 47, was travelling on the south side of the A12 on his motorcycle when he collided with traffic signs at a road closure on 7 June 2010. As a result of his accident Mr Turner sustained multiple serious injuries, included being completely paralysed – he is now unable to move any part of his body or communicate and needs round-the-clock care in order to survive. It is not currently known whether Mr Turner has or will claim personal injury because of his accident.

An investigation into the matter was commenced by the Health and Safety Executive. This investigation found that there had been serious health and safety failings by Carillion AM Government Limited, the firm that was contracted to undertake the roadworks. In particular, Carillion had failed to adequately signpost that roadworks were taking place, with the first indication that roadworks were taking place just 200 metres prior to the roadworks themselves. Given that the speed limit on this part of the road was 50mph, this give motorists very little time to slow before they came to the site of the roadworks. The HSE therefore decided that a prosecution should be commenced against Carillion and instigated criminal proceedings.

The case came before the Ipswich Crown Court on 7 November 2013. Carillion AM Government Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of s.3(1) of thee Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 – that it had failed to take such steps to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that persons not in the company’s employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health and safety. The Crown Court held that the company should be fined £180,000 for the breach and that it should also have to pay £28,551 towards the costs of the prosecution. There does not appear to have been any comment from Carillion’s criminal defence solicitors after the judgment.

HSE Inspector Mr Sandy Carmichael stated after the judgment: “Had Carillion complied with the industry’s code of practice and correctly placed temporary warning signs to alert motorists in good time to the roadworks, this dreadful incident could have been avoided… Roadworks provide increased risk in what is already a very hazardous environment. Anyone doing work on our roads must take great care to warn road users in good time what to expect on the road ahead.”

Redmans Solicitors are specialist employment solicitors and can help you claim personal injury if you’ve been involved in an accident at work

Please note that Redmans, trading as Criminal Defence Solicitors, did not represent Carillion AM Government Limited.

Surrey firm heavily fined after worker’s legs broken in workplace accident

A Surrey-based building materials firm has been heavily fined after a worker broke both his legs in an accident at work.

Mr Martyn Powell, 41, worked for Ceme UK Materials Ltd, a building materials firm, when he suffered the workplace accident on 27 June 2012. Mr Powell was engaged in cleaning the metal track used for transporting skips on site at the time of the accident. In order to clean under the track it was lifted into the air by a hoist. However, the hoist jammed and Mr Powell attempted to lower the track by using a manual ratchet. Mr Powell was attempting to lever the ratchet when the hook broke, releasing the track, and the track suddenly fell onto Mr Powell, striking his legs. This resulted in both Mr Powell’s legs being broken and he was obliged to spend a week in hospital because of the accident. He was also unable to work for six months after the accident.

It is not currently known whether Mr Powell has or will claim personal injury as a result of his accident.

The Health and Safety Executive were subsequently informed of the accident and commenced an investigation into the matter. This investigation found that the company had failed to take adequate steps to implement or maintain workplace equipment and had not implemented a safe system of work to account for the fact that the workplace equipment could fail. The HSE investigation therefore recommended that the company be prosecuted for breaching health and safety regulations.

The case came before the Aylesbury Crown Court on 13 November 2013. Cemex UK Materials Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were fined £35,000, as well as being ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £10,043.

Reports are unclear as to whether Cemex UK Materials Ltd instructed a firm of criminal defence solicitors to represent them in the case or whether they acted on their own behalf.

HSE Inspector Mr Karl Howes stated after the hearing: “Cemex UK Materials Ltd had not maintained the hoist properly and that led to it becoming jammed. All machinery must be maintained regularly to ensure it is safe to work with. It is not enough to rely on reactive maintenance and only fix things when they go wrong; companies should be looking for signs of wear and tear before any deterioration leads to an incident and possible injury.”

Chris Hadrill, a solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Businesses have obligations to their workers to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that they provide suitable workplace equipment and that the systems of work – or the failure to implement such – that they have in place do not endanger their workers. In this instance the court found that the company had failed to implement such measures, and that the failure to do so had caused a serious injury to a worker.”

Redmans are employment law solicitors and personal injury solicitors based in London