The Claimant argued the Defendants were negligent for this work accident* and the personal injuries* sustained because:

• The forklift hoisting a caged platform up to the ceiling should have been used for the duration of the operation
• The extendable ladder was unsuitable for accessing the roof space.
• The Claimant had not been adequately trained to maintain his own safety while working at a height and in particular whilst using a ladder in such circumstances.

Defendant denied the alleged negligence for the work accident* and personal injuries* sustained because:

• It would not have been possible to have left the forklift with the cage in position during the operation. It was the practice only to use the cage for the purpose of opening the hatch safely. Once that was done workers could get safe access to the roof space using an extendable ladder once properly secured.
• The Employer argued that he had not asked the Claimant to tidy up or take down the ladder. As far as he was concerned, the ladder should have been left in position until the installation was completed.
• The Employee did have sufficient training and knew that an extendable ladder was not safe unless secured at the top or the bottom.

The Court concluded that:

• The Defendant was not negligent in permitting the ladder as opposed to the cage platform to be used.
• The Judge was satisfied the extendable ladder was used safely by the Defendant and his staff;
• The Judge accepted the defendant’s evidence that the claimant was trained on the job and well knew how to maintain his own safety when working at a height or on a ladder.
• The Judge accepted that it is likely that the plaintiff would have received safety training in relation to how to protect himself when working at a height and also in the safe use of ladders.
• The Judge stated that the Claimant departed from standard practice which was that ladders were to be secured at the bottom before they were untied at the top and the Employee took it upon himself to depart from this practice and was the ‘’author of his own misfortune’’.

All employers have statutory duties in relation to providing a workplace that is safe. All employers have a responsibility to their employees to protect them from injury.

However, an Employer will not be held responsible for injuries suffered by an Employee if he departs from standard work practice, even if he does so with good intentions.

Interestingly in this case, the Judge stated that she found the Defendant to be an impressive witness and it is clear from reading the judgment that the decision of the Court was reached after listening carefully to all of the evidence given by both sides.

Personal Injury Solicitors

Kieran Cleary and Roger Cleary, Personal Injury Solicitors can help with questions you may have regarding negligence, liability, case viability etc. and our numbers are (01) 546 1121 or  (052) 612 1999 or our email address is info@clearysolicitors.com

Please be advised that the above-mentioned material is intended as an overview and as a broad outline of the topic discussed. It should not be considered as complete and comprehensive legal advice, nor act as an appropriate substitute.

Due care has been taken in the publication of this article and we do not accept legal liability as a result of reliance on any material covered in the above article.

Personal Injuries * In contentious business, a Solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.