The team at What’s My Claim Worth have settled a claim for an extrusion operator who was not provided with the correct work equipment.  He was on the factory floor trying to open a nut from a metal bar, which was part of the machinery that has to be serviced from time to time.  He was not given the correct tools to do the job, and was using a spanner.  The bar slipped and caused our client to stumble backwards, twisting his right knee.

Our client won £2,700 in compensation – click the Claimometer button to start your claim today…

Try the Claimometer

Our client had not been provided with suitable work equipment. It is the legal requirement that employers provide all employees with suitable work equipment for the job. In order to comply with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations Act 1998 (PUWER). This Act means that all equipment required for use is:

  • Suitable for the intended use
  • Safe for use, kept in a safe condition and regularly inspected to ensure that it is correctly installed and does not deteriorate
  • Used by people who have received sufficient training and instruction
  • Accompanied by suitable Health and Safety measures, these include protective controls and devices such as emergency stop switches, clear visible warnings and markings
  • Used in accordance with specific requirements

Following the accident, our client suffered pain to his lower back and to the right lower leg, thigh and hip. Fortunately these injuries resolved within 3 months from the date of the accident. He underwent one session of physiotherapy.

Liability (fault) for this accident was admitted by insurers on behalf of the defendant due to his employers breaching the following:

  • Failing ensure that the work equipment provided was so constructed or adapted as to be suitable for the purpose for which it was used or provided
  • In selecting the above work equipment, failing  to have regard to the working conditions and to the risks to the health and safety of the claimant which existed when using it
  • Failing to ensure that the above work equipment was only used for operations for which, and under conditions for which, it was suitable
  • Failing to provide appropriate or adequate equipment for the purpose of undertaking the task
  • Causing, permitting, requiring or suffering the continuance of the practice of using the spanner as above when it was unsafe and unsuitable to do so
  • Failing to ensure that the spanner displayed a warning that it was not suitable for the task in hand
  • Failing to train or instruct the claimant as to how or how safely to undertake his work or otherwise to supervise him to see that he undertook it safely
  • Causing, permitting, requiring or suffering the claimant to work as above when it was unsafe to do so
  • Failing to warn the claimant of the dangers of working as above or otherwise to prevent him from doing so
  • Failing to provide or maintain for the Claimant safe or adequate plant or equipment;
  • Failing to take any or any adequate care for the safety of the Claimant
  • Exposing the Claimant to a danger or a trap or a foreseeable risk of injury.

As a result of this our lawyers were able to successfully able to settle this claim for our client without the need to start court proceedings. Our client received £2,700 in compensation for his injuries and losses.

Our Reviews

Try the Claimometer

Calculate how much your claim could be worth in just seconds

Try the Claimometer
Try our claimometer