Driver wins damages

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

war1974:
there should also be a if you are that stupid thick or retarded then its tough.

its like working in a bakery and putting your hand on trays just coming out the oven then suing the employer because they didn’t show you to wear gloves!

You don’t have to be any of those things to make a mistake. Even brain surgeons make mistakes.

That’s the real nub of the attitude problem. Careful people do make mistakes even in ideal conditions, and conditions are rarely ideal.

Until a person accepts this as the reality, and that “only the stupid make mistakes” is not the reality, it is impossible to have a sensible conversation about safety.

22

Dipper_Dave:
I’m gonna drop on the drivers side in all this.
Company refuses to pay time off driver finds out company hasn’t covered it’s arse, ching ching (also the name of a Thai ladyboy I once knew, had a mate called chang chang as well but he was less convincing).

Cracked me up again Dave.

Did both of them drive for trans-atlantic?

23

war1974:
of course I have made mistakes no body even albion is perfect, what I have not done is break my foot or even stupider keep crushing it with a taillift.

even tired its amazing how my self preservation skills work, its to me another example of how society continually rewards the stupid.

The workplace is not a place where the “stupid” go to be punished, or maimed or killed. It’s a place where people go to render useful work, and live to do the same tomorrow.

I’d also be interested to understand what the definition of stupidity is in this context.

I admit the injury in this case seems a bit surprising, but instead of assuming it must be some sort of legal fiddle or a gullible judge, I assume it is what it is, a badly designed tail lift and an employer who hasn’t even attempted to help the worker work safely.

24

war1974:
i have worked with taillifts for years both old and new at several companies and without sounding funny rjan - if your able to cut off fingers or toes your missing several braincells.

When I first came across a tail lift back in the mid 80’s, it was a simple up/down procedure (as most are today), then in the 90’s I was on a rental 6 wheeler Volvo that had an under slung foldaway/fold in half type affair…poxy thing had 2 joysticks…lower it, extend the Rams out, unfold it, tilt to level it then up to the level of the bed then you had to adjust its angle to level it again as it never stayed or set itself to a level platform…was a bass turd nightmare! Stowing it away was more of the same but you had to ‘jiggle’ it about to get it under the body, constantly wiggling the bloody sticks of no joy but what made it worse was all the rear light clusters (and the Volvo ones were a fair old size) were fixed to the under run bar which was also part of the tail lift…got through loads of 'em before they sent it back! And on the subject of roller shutters, we had one lad shut his one day by grabbing hold of the gap in the slats with both hands where it disappeared over the top into the body…he never did it again and was carted off to hospital with 6 finger tips in between 2 bags of chips

25

assuming anything but - every tail lift I have used has a gap before it hits or meets the rear of the truck - only an idiot outs his foot so bloody close to that edge that they break their foot.

given the fact most tail lifts hardly fly up and down there is every chance he may have at some point thought oh this is going to hurt but oh no it was far easier to continue and break the foot before going off work getting a 6 figure sum for it. as I said and I am not changing my point unless the lad who it was comes on and says it was x y z and not my fault if you manage to do that then your stupid.

and actrosman did he get a 6 figure sum out of it?

26

I fell of a tail lift because I hadn’t put up the side guards, I was ok though 'cos it were on the ground at the time :slight_smile:
The lad comes from Hull, where that level of stupidity is the norm :wink:

27

War1974…he got nowt, just regular sick pay

28

I’ve never used a tail lift, been trained in the use of a tail lift, but I would say comfortably I could work out how use ANY tailift in a couple of minutes, and not break a bone in my ■■■■■■■ foot doing it.

The bloke is a joke.

Rjan, all I can say is I’m glad I don’t work side by side with you, because I bet you don’t pull your weight, just your gums.

29

F-reds:
I’ve never used a tail lift, been trained in the use of a tail lift, but I would say comfortably I could work out how use ANY tailift in a couple of minutes, and not break a bone in my [zb] foot doing it.

The bloke is a joke.

Rjan, all I can say is I’m glad I don’t work side by side with you, because I bet you don’t pull your weight, just your gums.

It’s not the question whether you can work out how to use a tail lift in a basic way. The first time I came across the tuck-under/fold-in-half type lift described by Actrosman, there was no question of hurting myself, but the folding half I nearly dropped on the storeman’s shins/toes because I just wasn’t familiar with it (and he’d approached closer to try and help).

I’m pretty sure it was the same design of lift which I’m thinking about which by its design was prone to bite your toes suddenly.

Even the so-called column lift type which just go up and down, I can faintly recall an occasion when I’ve ripped the fingers of a pair of gloves lifting the catch to drop the platform, because it had some sort of defect which caused a struggle to release it and when it did go it fell under its own weight and minced the glove. Lucky not to be fingers.

As I say, guys here have lived very sheltered lives or very forgetful lives, either way very lucky, if they can say they’ve never been in danger of injury from equipment that is badly designed, defective, or just plain unfamiliar.

It’s true I’ve never actually been injured by a tail lift. I suppose I could crow about that and claim to be just very good at my job. I suppose these guys who claim they can do anything without being shown first, could just pick up a dental drill and do their own fillings, if only given a chance at that without all the red tape.

30

There you go again Rjan. You are clearly an intelligent chap, but you’re confusing a simple set of skills like truck driving and using a tail lift, with dentistry :unamused:

Strong effort on your behalf!

I know what I can do, I know what I could work out given a bit of time to have a play, drilling my own fillings isn’t one of the former or latter.

Using a tail lift without killing myself or someone else is. See what I did there? I used the similar form of hyperbole as you did. Except it was relevant. Just as ridiculous though…

I don’t think I’ve ever been in danger due to defective, and or unfamiliar equipment, my life has hardly been sheltered. I have however, been hurt a couple of occasions, by my own stupidity. I never sought my picture in the paper, nor tried to assign the blame anyway else. That’s all that’s happened here.

31

F-reds:
I don’t think I’ve ever been in danger due to defective, and or unfamiliar equipment, my life has hardly been sheltered. I have however, been hurt a couple of occasions, by my own stupidity. I never sought my picture in the paper, nor tried to assign the blame anyway else. That’s all that’s happened here.

As I say, I’m curious to understand what you think stupidity means. One minute you’re telling me you’re a smart guy who can figure out basic machinery and who has never been at risk from defective or unfamiliar equipment, next you say you’ve been hurt more than once by your own stupidity.

Something has to give here, which is either that you’re really a stupid guy yourself (because you haven’t been able to avoid your own injury), or that your injuries do not imply stupidity in your constitution but are simply a normal human weakness which require precautions and compensating measures to preserve your body and soul.

I said earlier, even smart guys make mistakes, and it is imperative that work is organised so that when smart guys make mistakes, any injury or consequences are minimised, and the conditions under which even smart guys are prone to make mistakes are minimised.

It’s just basic stuff, like when the Victorian factory owners were forced to fit wire guards around the drive belts of machinery. They weren’t previously doing a service to the working class gene pool when people had their fingers or arms ripped off - they were just destroying the lives of perfectly good workers when someone tripped over a spanner or an uneven floorboard and fell (or pushed someone else) into the whirring cogs of the machine.

32

He should’ve trapped his nuts. An idiot prevented from polluting the gene pool should be encouraged.

33

the maoster:
He should’ve trapped his nuts. An idiot prevented from polluting the gene pool should be encouraged.

I guess that’s why you have to treat drivers like trained gibbons - they’re always trying to create an environment like the jungle! You’re after a kind of “artificial selection”, because there’s certainly nothing natural about it, and it involves purely the dangers of the human-built environment and man-made machines. It’s these attitudes to safety that have to be knocked out.

34

I’ve caught my feet in a tail lift before and each time i did it hit the steel caps.He must have
been wearing the wrong foot wear.

35

Rjan:
As I say, I’m curious to understand what you think stupidity means. One minute you’re telling me you’re a smart guy who can figure out basic machinery and who has never been at risk from defective or unfamiliar equipment, next you say you’ve been hurt more than once by your own stupidity.

Simple. Stupidity is hurting yourself through an action, which on reflection is in advisable…

I never said I was smart. You did. Thanks! :laughing:

Yes I have been hurt by my own stupidity. There’s no shame in that. In fact I have just rid myself of bruise under my thumb nail, been there 3 months growing out. The cause? Me assembling four separate IKEA chest of drawers on a Friday night, whilst consuming 8 bottles of Asahi. Towards the end of the flat pack hell my judgement was impaired and I mistook my thumb as a nail…

I did think about suing IKEA, because they didn’t provide me with an instruction to not attempt while consuming alcohol. I also thought about suing Asahi, for not finding space on their label, to warn me not to use hand tools after consumption.

But I declined because in the morning, when my thumb was throbbing, I decided that on reflection my actions were unwise, and it was probably my fault.

So my point is simple. He had used other tail lifts before this one, and as such probably should have been looking at his foot while he was clearly putting it in mortal danger. Then he shouldn’t of tried to blame anyone else for his idiocy. As ever I agree with Maoster…

36

Rjan:

the maoster:
He should’ve trapped his nuts. An idiot prevented from polluting the gene pool should be encouraged.

I guess that’s why you have to treat drivers like trained gibbons - they’re always trying to create an environment like the jungle! You’re after a kind of “artificial selection”, because there’s certainly nothing natural about it, and it involves purely the dangers of the human-built environment and man-made machines. It’s these attitudes to safety that have to be knocked out.

image.jpeg

37

fingermissing:
I’ve caught my feet in a tail lift before and each time i did it hit the steel caps.He must have
been wearing the wrong foot wear.

Foot side-on would do it. We’d have to ask the bloke to find out…

38

Rjan…the type of defect you mention is when one of the torsion bars has gone…we had many of these go, sometimes through age and sometimes through abuse (driver flipping the safety catch and just letting it fall under its own steam…would’ve caused some serious injury if it had hit someone and was a bloody back breaker trying to get it stowed away again. Another type we’ve had in the past had the buttons on the platform itself…some of the numpties would put 1 tonne pallets of water on the down button so that the ‘mate’ could take it off at floor level without having to stand on the platform itself! Have used many types of TL’s on multidrop, and imho, certain types are only good for certain jobs. Either way, it’s obvious some sort of ‘basic training’ should be given and then (as ‘we’ used to or should do) a disclaimer should be signed…if used improperly, they can be a killer and as one lad found out a few years ago whilst acting as drivers mate and trying to shave a few minutes off at a drop, leave you relying on others for every basic need you can think of for the rest of your life

39

F-reds:

Rjan:
As I say, I’m curious to understand what you think stupidity means. One minute you’re telling me you’re a smart guy who can figure out basic machinery and who has never been at risk from defective or unfamiliar equipment, next you say you’ve been hurt more than once by your own stupidity.

Simple. Stupidity is hurting yourself through an action, which on reflection is in advisable…

Since serious injury is probably never advisable whilst delivering commercial goods (or any employment besides say the armed forces or similar), your definition then leads us to say that anyone injured delivering commercial goods is stupid. That doesn’t seem to leave room for actions which are stupid notwithstanding the lack of injury so far (sum-uppable as “picking pennies in front of a steamroller”), nor for injuries which result from reasonable conduct on the part of the injured person but stupidity on the part of another (such as the idiot who trips over a floorboard and pushes you into an unguarded drive belt, or the idiot who made it a condition of your employment to stand next to unguarded drive belts and dodgy floorboards).

I never said I was smart. You did. Thanks! :laughing:

Yes I have been hurt by my own stupidity. There’s no shame in that. In fact I have just rid myself of bruise under my thumb nail, been there 3 months growing out. The cause? Me assembling four separate IKEA chest of drawers on a Friday night, whilst consuming 8 bottles of Asahi. Towards the end of the flat pack hell my judgement was impaired and I mistook my thumb as a nail…

I did think about suing IKEA, because they didn’t provide me with an instruction to not attempt while consuming alcohol. I also thought about suing Asahi, for not finding space on their label, to warn me not to use hand tools after consumption.

But I declined because in the morning, when my thumb was throbbing, I decided that on reflection my actions were unwise, and it was probably my fault.

I would agree, except that stupidity is normally something that does imply a degree of shame in the workplace (unless you’re a slapstick comedian working to a slide-whistle soundtrack, and even they have cushions under their clothes), and secondly your example fails to establish any stupidity on the part of Ikea. They presumably didn’t provide the tools. Nor did they require you to assemble the furniture, or require you to be drunk, and certainly not do both at the same time. They didn’t have the opportunity to observe you being drunk when you commenced. And the resulting injury was quite modest - it’s not so serious that we can’t afford to let people suffer it.

So my point is simple. He had used other tail lifts before this one, and as such probably should have been looking at his foot while he was clearly putting it in mortal danger. Then he shouldn’t of tried to blame anyone else for his idiocy. As ever I agree with Maoster…

The question is had he used that tail lift before, and had he been seen to do it safely? And did he have the right attitude for self-preservation - if not, then he should be employed in the Wacky Warehouse (or by employers who have safer tail lifts), not around machinery which requires responsible operation. Also, he didn’t just try to blame his employer, but succeeded in doing so.

It was the lack of training that was really fatal to the employer’s case. It doesn’t take much time to put a guy in front of a tail lift and watch him work and give him a few pointers. Moreover, if you’re having to say to him “don’t put your feet there or they’ll be broken before you can let go of the button”, that normally prompts an employer to think about whether their machine should incorporate a sudden foot-breaking feature in the first place (not all designs of tail lifts do).

The only way it can take too long or too much hassle to do this, is when there are too many hidden hazards which aren’t easy to demonstrate, in which case the employer needs to start thinking about proper training or hazard mitigation. Or use newer equipment and maintain it properly, because usually it is older designs or maintenance defects which are the real problem.

40

Rjan:

F-reds:
Simple. Stupidity is hurting yourself through an action, which on reflection is in advisable…

Since serious injury is probably never advisable whilst delivering commercial goods (or any employment besides say the armed forces or similar), your definition then leads us to say that anyone injured delivering commercial goods is stupid. That doesn’t seem to leave room for actions which are stupid notwithstanding the lack of injury so far (sum-uppable as “picking pennies in front of a steamroller”), nor for injuries which result from reasonable conduct on the part of the injured person but stupidity on the part of another (such as the idiot who trips over a floorboard and pushes you into an unguarded drive belt, or the idiot who made it a condition of your employment to stand next to unguarded drive belts and dodgy floorboards).

See how my definition is a single sentence, and your summation of my definition is half a side of A4, of irrelevant waffle?

Not everyone who is injured whilst delivering goods from a commercial vehicle is stupid. But in this case I stand by my view that this here fella was.

Rjan:
The question is had he used that tail lift before, and had he been seen to do it safely? And did he have the right attitude for self-preservation - if not, then he should be employed in the Wacky Warehouse (or by employers who have safer tail lifts), not around machinery which requires responsible operation. Also, he didn’t just try to blame his employer, but succeeded in doing so.

It was the lack of training that was really fatal to the employer’s case. It doesn’t take much time to put a guy in front of a tail lift and watch him work and give him a few pointers. Moreover, if you’re having to say to him “don’t put your feet there or they’ll be broken before you can let go of the button”, that normally prompts an employer to think about whether their machine should incorporate a sudden foot-breaking feature in the first place (not all designs of tail lifts do).

The only way it can take too long or too much hassle to do this, is when there are too many hidden hazards which aren’t easy to demonstrate, in which case the employer needs to start thinking about proper training or hazard mitigation. Or use newer equipment and maintain it properly, because usually it is older designs or maintenance defects which are the real problem.

It wasn’t the lack of training that was fatal. I believe it was the lack of recorded training that was fatal to their case. The employers said they gave it, the employee said they didn’t.

The thing that annoys me about this is there is a picture of chap, looking all glum, telling his story of woe in the paper. When actually he’s probably as culpable in the injury as the employer. Now the law does not agree with me on my view, it does agree with yours. Several other respondents to this thread have a similar stance to me, suggesting that this could be a case of that famous old saying “The Law is an ■■■”.

There is another famous old saying Rjan, and I suspect you are full of it.

:laughing:

Isn’t debate wonderful?