Accidents from errors in manual handling are the commonest source of injury in Irish workplaces.
If such an injury happens it invokes, potentially at least, the assessment of the event from the perspective of the duties of employers regarding such events. Chapter 4 of the General Application Regulations 2007 (SI 299/2007) particularly apply.
Any injury may result for these errors, but back injury dominates.
An employer is obliged
a) to seek alternative methods to manual handling;
b) to keep any such alternatives in working order;
c) to train staff in the techniques of manual handling as required;
d) to up-date training where this appears necessary;
e) to ensure that staff do not lift weights heavier than those stipulated in the weights guidelines (Health and Safety Authority);
f) generally to assess the risk where manual handling is unavoidable
Below are whimsical examples of pleading in a personal injury claim. The pleadings are not in order and do not conform to current pleading requirements for personal injury actions. Nevertheless they reflect the strange world of conflict in a personal injury lawsuit.
2009 No. 123
The High Court
BETWEEN Joseph Brush Plaintiff
and
Plastic Surfaces Ltd. Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Delivered the 1st Day of April 2009 by
Skin & Bone Solicitors for the plaintiff
of Victory House Broad Street Dublin 1
1. The Plaintiff is a housepainter and he resides at 54 Shady Lane Rathcormac Dublin 10.
2. At all material times hereto the plaintiff was employed as a painter at the defendant’ s plastic-coated fabrics factory at Leafy Hollow Rathcormac Dublin 10 which said premises is owned and managed by the defendant.
3. It was a term of the said contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant and/or it was the duty of the defendant to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff while he was engaged upon his work, not to expose him to a risk of damage or injury of which they knew or ought to have known, to provide and maintain safe and adequate and suitable plant, tackle and appliances to enable the plaintiff to carry out his work in safety, to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the place where he carried out his work was safe and to provide and maintain a safe and proper system of work.
4. On or about the 1st day of March 2009 the plaintiff was in the course of his aforesaid work, lifting a roll of plastic- coated fabric when he injured his back. In descending a set of steps immediately following his back injury the plaintiff slipped on the said steps and lost his footing and fell down several steps, knocking over and burning himself with the contents of an open jar of hydrochloric acid which was standing at the bottom of the said steps.
5. The plaintiff injured his back, fell and burned himself with hydrochloric acid as aforesaid owing to the negligence and breach of duty on the part of the aforesaid defendant its servants or agents, in or about the management, maintenance and supervision of the aforesaid premises and the prevention of grave risk to the plaintiff.
Particulars of Negligence and Breach of Duty (including Statutory Duty)
A. Failed to provide the plaintiff with safe or adequate mechanical lifting equipment or assistance in the performance of his task of lifting the roll of plastic-coated fabric as aforesaid.
B. Failed to instruct the plaintiff in respect of safe and adequate lifting arrangements for the lifting of heavy or awkward loads.
C. Required the plaintiff to perform the said lifting operation without assistance.
D. Failed to take appropriate or any steps to obviate the said back injury accident.
E. Failing to provide any or any adequate lighting on the said staircase when they knew or ought to have known that the presence of slippy plastic or other foreign material was a common hazard on the said staircase which could not be spotted by the person using the said staircase in the absence of adequate lighting thereon;
F. Failing to take any or any adequate precautions for the safety of the plaintiff while he was engaged on his aforesaid work;
G. Exposing the plaintiff to a risk of damage or injury of which they knew or ought to have known;
H. Failing to provide a safe and proper system of work;
I. Failing to provide any or any adequate supervision;
J. Exposing the plaintiff to unnecessary and avoidable risk;
K. Failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers presented by slippy plastic and other foreign material on the said staircase when the lighting thereon was inadequate;
L. Failing to provide competent workmates;
M. Failing to provide a safe place of work.
N. Leaving a jar of dangerous and corrosive chemical open where it might be spilled and injure the plaintiff especially in his distressed state.
O. Failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers presented by the jar of hydrochloric acid on the said staircase.
P. Requiring or permitting the plaintiff to lift and move a load which was heavy and likely to cause him injury in breach of Article 68 of the General Application Regulations 2007 (SI 299/2007).
6. As a result of the aforesaid matters the plaintiff suffered severe personal injury, other loss and damage.
Particulars of Personal Injury
The plaintiff experienced severe pain in his lower back on lifting the roll of fabric. He suffered further pain on falling down the staircase further injuring his back and his right foot. On striking the jar of hydrochloric acid the contents spilled out onto both of the legs of the plaintiff and pooled about him as he sat on the landing. It burned his hands, legs, feet and buttocks.
The plaintiff was taken to St. Cuthbert’s Hospital where he was examined on arrival. He was conscious but in considerable pain. He had two degree burns on his legs and feet with three degree burns on his hands and buttocks. His burns were dressed and he was then X-rayed for his back and leg complaints. Soft tissue injury of his back was diagnosed and he was prescribed bed rest and physiotherapy as soon as the acid burn injuries allowed. A fracture of the cuboid was first suspected based on the X-rays of the right leg. The plaintiff suffered severe pain from his back at this juncture and was prescribed pain killers. The plaintiff was suffering from pain in the lower back region, radiating down the right leg. He was found to have restriction of movement in the lumbar spine together with tenderness in the right lower and lumbar and buttock region. Straight leg raising was restricted.
The plaintiff’s above injuries caused and continue to cause severe pain and discomfort. His capacity to enjoy his work and life generally has been severely diminished by his injuries. His complaints continue, may be permanent and the onset of adverse sequalae cannot be ruled out.
Particulars of Special Damage
Hospital Bills (unascertained and continuing)
Doctors’ Bills (unascertained and continuing)
Chemists’ Bills (unascertained and continuing)
Travelling Expenses (unascertained and continuing)
Loss of Wages (unascertained and continuing)
Damage to Clothing (unascertained and continuing)
Michael Soap B.L.
To the Registrar
Central Office
Four Courts
Dublin 7
And:
Fat & Smooth
Solicitors for the Defendant
Corkscrew Lane
The Highway
Dublin 2
________________________________
2009 No. 123
The High Court
BETWEEN Joseph Brush Plaintiff
and
Plastic Surfaces Ltd. Defendant
DEFENCE
Delivered the 2nd Day of April 2009 by
Fat & Smooth Solicitors for the Defendant
Corkscrew Lane, The Highway Dublin 2
1. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was employed as a housepainter at their premises in Leafy Lane Rathcormac Dublin 10 as is alleged or at all.
2. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was lifting a roll of plastic-coated fabric as is alleged or at all.
3. The defendant denies that the plaintiff fell on descending the staircase as is alleged or at all.
4. The defendant denies that the plaintiff struck a jar of hydrochloric acid on the staircase or that same spilled on him as is alleged or at all.
5. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was caused to suffer, or did suffer, the onset of severe back pain as is alleged or at all.
6. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was caused to suffer an injury to his right leg as is alleged or at all.
7. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was caused to suffer burns to his legs, feet, hands and buttocks as is alleged or at all.
8. The defendant denies that the plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries, loss or damage as is alleged or at all.
9. If the plaintiff did suffer personal injury, loss or damage (which is denied) the defendant denies that the same was caused by the negligence or breach of duty of this defendant, it’s servants or agents, as is alleged or at all.
10. If the plaintiff did suffer personal injuries, loss or damage (which is denied) then the defendant says that the same was suffered or alternatively contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff.
Joe Sunlight B.L.
To the Registrar
Central Office
Four Courts
Dublin 7
And:
Skin & Bone
Solicitors for the Plaintiff
Victory House
Broad St.
Dublin 1
