£30,000 for denied ladder fall injury at work

Aston Knight Solicitors are delighted to share a further case success being a denied ladder fall injury matter.

Mr X was tasked with servicing a water tank located on a mezzanine level only accessible via a pull-down ladder. Whilst climbing the ladder and trying to climb onto the mezzanine level, the ladder suddenly shifted forwards off the steps it was resting upon, causing him to fall around 10 feet onto the stairs below. He struck both his ankle and head and was left temporarily unconscious.

A claim was submitted against both his employer and the owner/occupier of the premises he was attending at the time. Both defendants denied liability; his employer alleging that he had work at height training and the premises occupier arguing that it was not possible to prove what had happened.

We obtained expert evidence from a forensic engineer who identified numerous failings which contributed to the accident including: the ladder not being long enough therefore resulting in the user not being able to maintain three points of contact at all times; the need to release a chain at the top to access the mezzanine level without secure contact; resting the ladder on stairs; the ladder not being designed for commercial/work use and instead having a 100kg max weight tolerance, and more.

Whilst he and his colleague had received basic work at height training, neither of them were aware of the failings in the ladder and work at height setup.

Expert medical evidence was also obtained from a neuropsychologist; neurologist and orthopaedic surgeon who, respectively, reported that the fall had left Mr X with persistent post-concussion symptoms, minor traumatic brain injury resulting in ongoing post-traumatic migraines and a fractured ankle.

Given the ongoing denials of liability court proceedings were issued which triggered settlement negotiations resulting in a strong settlement of £30,000.

James Winterbottom, solicitor, who dealt with the case comments:

This case highlights the benefits that engineering expert evidence can bring to a case. Initially it was unclear how the accident had happened and the Defendants were trying to capitalise upon this both in arguing that the client had work at height training and that it could not be proven what had actually caused the fall (a claimant must prove to the Court what exactly went wrong if they are to succeed in their case) and I return to this below when exploring how the safety of systems of work is to be determined.

The case also further underscores Aston Knight Solicitors’ refusal to accept denials of liability without challenge and to commit to a case in securing medical expert evidence and then issuing court proceedings on the client’s behalf, all on a no-win no-fee basis. In this case issuing court proceedings with substantial expert evidence triggered settlement negotiations and secured justice for the client.

All too often we receive calls from clients whose cases have been closed by other firms following liability being denied with firms typically preferring to concentrate upon admitted cases in which recovery of costs are guaranteed. This sadly results in many clients being denied justice in cases which would have succeeded had the firm continued supporting the case.

Talking point – how do we really know how safe a system of work is?

The engineering expert evidence unearthed multiple failings in the system of work and, in my view, these failings were not things that the basic work at height training the client and his colleague received would have enabled them to pick up upon.

So often employers assume that basic health and safety training upon topics such as work at height will absolve them of liability but this disregards the fact that the true risks of any process often require more expert analysis than ordinary workers are competent to do. This was confirmed in the landmark work injury case of Allison v London Underground Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 71 in which the Court of Appeal ruled that the employer should have sought expert input when risk assessing the system of work – what appeared safe to the employer was actually dangerous to a trained expert eye.

Work at height and ladder issues can involve complex mechanical issues including ladder ratings, angles, how things are secured, safety equipment used and more. I very much doubt that an ordinary worker having participated in a basic work at height training session would be sufficiently competent to assess the risks – this is where expert input is required otherwise, in my view, workers are being placed at risk. Working at height is for obvious reasons a high risk activity with potentially severe consequences and so employers must ensure tasks are thoroughly risk assessed by those with sufficient expertise to do so.

Back to Recent Successes