the trailer could shoot forward quite a few inches if you disregard movement on the pin.
If the suspension has dropped the top of the trailer leans back, opening up the gap, when the air goes in and the suspension reinflates along with the brakes releasing, the top moves forward again as the trailer levels up, usually pushing against the suspension on the unit for a split second,which closes the gap quite a lot for a second or so.
maybe not described very well but anyone doing shunting will know the type of thing, especially if they are used to simply relying on red line disconnection for the brakes.
I think you’re wasting your time. Without the trailer brake applied any injury will be regarded as your fault and realistically the company can’t be held responsible or compensate you for your mistakes.
Move on mate.
I am pleased to read the OP stating he is going to speak to a solicitor beacuse their is some real flawed thinking in some of these posts by people who have clearly never been through an instance remotely similar to that stated.
The OP was clear and right to state at the outset that he has failed to do the basic checks otherwise he would have spotted the fact the trailer brake was not on. However that does not absolve others of their responsibility, all it would do is mitigate some of their (or their insurers) liability. In plain english, the outcome could be for arguments sake a compensation award of £10k but a % fault laying with the Op of say 50% so he would only receive a £5k payout.
not checking the brake was on WAS his fault, agreed.
but that isn’t what he was sacked for. he was sacked for falsley claiming that an accident as described had happened.
As I understand it he isn’t looking at compo for the accident but is looking for redress to unfair dismissal.
By the by, if he was claiming compo for injury etc.there would be some evidence of the accident which the company claim didn’t happen.
Even if he had been sacked for not checking the brake it would still be unfair as the driver who dropped the trailer admitted not setting the brake and apparently was not disciplined at all.
reading back through the posts I came across this that I had missed.
They can NOT dismiss you as they BELIEVE your lying. I’ll say again they must PROVE it.
I used to think that was the case until a colleague got sacked for “suspicion of stealing”.
I use the quotes specifically because that was the written reason on his dismissal notice.
It went all the way through the courts until the union dropped the case and it was lost each time. There was no evidence of him stealing, nor any evidence that anything HAD been stolen.
But the courts came down on the bosses side. I think from memory it was described as “a reasonable precaution on the employers side”
iDriver:
However that does not absolve others of their responsibility, all it would do is mitigate some of their (or their insurers) liability. In plain english, the outcome could be for arguments sake a compensation award of £10k but a % fault laying with the Op of say 50% so he would only receive a £5k payout.
Sorry but you’re talking ■■■■■■■■. They had none, zero, nada, nil responsibility. It is the duty and responsibility of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time to do the checks. Not the warehouse staff, not the driver who dropped it on the bay, not the shunter from an earlier shift but the person who is hooking up to the trailer at the time.
If you were driving down the road with a load on a flatbed and it fell off because it wasn’t strapped on properly it is you the driver who is responsible, not the shunter who loaded it or the previous driver who dropped the trailer but you.
It’s the difference between criminal law : beyond reasonable doubt and civil law: the balance of probability.
I short to prosecute him they’d have to prove he was lying but sack him a reasonable suspicion is all that’s needed. And there is no record of an accident or medical treatment.
As far as any compo is concerned they’d argue he was 100% at fault so he would lose 100% in mitigation.
However you look at it he’s screwed. Firstly by not performing his duties properly and secondly for not filling in the accident book an attending hospital.
Driveroneuk:
I agree with you iDriver. The company have failed in their responsibility to train the OP their site’s safe working practice.
If he has a C+E license he has already been trained. He could not have passed the driving test without knowing the correct coupling procedure, part 1 of which is make sure the park brake is on before you do anything.
There is no need to train him how to couple up a trailer because he has a piece of paper that shows he already has.
Del1949, if you look back further you will see I addressed the separate issues of that exist.
Picking up on your last post you used a word that is key to that process “Reasonable”. In a Criminal Court the case must be proved by the prosecution “beyond all reasonable doubt”. In lower courts and tribunals that changes to “Balance of probabilities” and it is not always for the prosecution to prove guilt it can be for the defence to prove innocence.
The OP has not mentioned when this accident happened but: If he had been seriously injured and consequently admitted to Hospital, he would not have been able to enter the event in the Accident Book. This would then have been the responsibility of management. He has said that the accident was reported to 1st line management at the time. It was their duty as much as his to ensure that the accident was recorded.
If an accident had happened to me which I did not at first consider worth entering (minor cut to finger stops bleeding very quickly) but about which I later changed my mind (finger turns septic), then I would insist upon entering the incident in the book making clear that the report is (say) four days after the incident and any reason I might wish to record.
