subject: The Prickly Business Of Suing Your Employers [print this page] Personal injury compensation claims come in all shapes and sizes, but as unusual injury claims go, this one is right up there in the biscuit-taking stakes.
22 year old Carl Woodbridge was pruning a cactus at a shopping centre in Milton Keynes in October 2008 when he accidentally sliced into a section of the 30-foot-high plant and received a faceful of toxic sap, some of which bound itself to the surface of his right eye.
The glue-like substance, which caused Mr Woodbridge to temporarily lose his eyesight, had to be painstakingly removed from his cornea by doctors.
Now, almost two years later, Mr Woodbridge is seeking compensation of up to GBP10,000 for his injury, which saw him off work for six weeks. He still has to wear protective glasses to shield his eyes from the glare of strong light.
Although the specific facts of the case are rather unusual, the basic premise of Mr Woodbridge's claim is not: under UK law an employer has an obligation to protect their employee whilst the latter is performing their duties.
Mr Woodbridge had not been provided with appropriate safety equipment, such as goggles, and had been inadequately instructed as to how he might carry out his task, pruning the cactus, without endangering himself or others. In a nutshell, his injuries seem to be the indirect result of his employer's negligence; the employer has ostensibly failed to fulfil its duty of care towards him.
A compensation claim for personal injury is usually made up of two basic elements: compensation for pain and suffering caused by the employer's negligence, and remuneration for any loss of earnings. In this case, Mr Woodbridge was off work for nearly two months and can most certainly argue that he experienced pain and suffering: 'It felt like horrific burning, like there was a fire under my eyeball. I couldn't see for a week. I thought I might go blind,' he says.
His employer, a subsidiary of Rentokil, will, under UK law, hold public liability or indemnity insurance to protect both themselves and their employees. If the employee seeks to make a claim for compensation, the employer's insurance company will foot the bill if that claim is successful. The employer is protected in the sense that they will not be bankrupted by having to meet the costs of an employee bringing litigation.
Even though it has taken Mr Woodbridge 21 months to bring his case forward, the commencement of the claim falls within the time limit of three years between the occurrence of the accident and the start of legal proceedings, outside of which the claim will expire.
Making a claim against a negligent employer is much more straightforward than it used to be. These days, since the advent of the 'no win no fee' system, there are a variety of claims management companies on the market who take the most basic details from a potential claimant and instruct the most appropriate solicitor themselves, on the client's behalf.
Such companies are widespread, but efficiently-regulated and more professional outfits are harder to come by. Potential claimants should look for seals of approval, such as the Claims Standards Council's insignia, on the websites of the company they choose to lodge their claim with.
by: Richard Craig
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
