The ONLY reason this knob got paid out, was a lack of signed training records. Red tape ■■■■■■■■.
This idiot was entrusted with an SA80 for Christ sake. Thank the Lord he is no longer serving.
Using a tail lift is not difficult.
F-reds:
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.
Your definition was snappier, but quickly found wanting.
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.
And based on your experience of this game, who do you believe? The lack of records implies that it was never actually given - there would be lots of ways of proving that training actually occurred, even if a training record was lost.
And even when firms do have records, what’s to say they didn’t receive imaginary training, like I have before now!
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 ■■■”.
What would you expect a legitimate claimant to look like - a Cheshire cat with two thumbs up?
As for culpability, what is it you suspect really happened? I think it’s pretty unlikely that a person would intentionally break their own bones (it’s certainly less likely than accidental injury). And most people who’ve used a tail lift (especially if you’ve used lots of different types on different vehicles) can recall catching their boots at least once in a while without being involved in any bad behaviour.
eagerbeaver:
The ONLY reason this knob got paid out, was a lack of signed training records. Red tape ■■■■■■■■.
Training records don’t have to be signed - and a signature certainly doesn’t prove the content of any training, or automatically excuse an employer when an accident actually occurs. What a court would be looking for is whether the training was actually given, and whether a person acted contrary to that training, and if so then why.
If the company can’t muster a shred of evidence (not even circumstantial), and a person has in fact been accidentally injured using equipment they haven’t used much before, then the employer is probably liable on some basis.
Even something as simple as a trainer’s worksheet with that driver’s name checked off, backed up by a tacho record showing a period of other work, could show that time was taken for training. If they haven’t got anything, then how on Earth does the employer keep track of who is trained and who still needs it?
EDIT: reading the news article again, I wouldn’t say lack of training records were the only reason the guy was paid out. The employer were probably just trying their luck in asserting (at least by implication) that the guy injured himself through his own misconduct. There was probably no evidence to support this, but the case has rumbled along to disclosure, and that is when the lack of training records have had to be acknowledged and the employer has had to fold their hand.
Said driver was using a normal up / down tail lift from the day he started then was given a under slung tail lift with tilt and not told how to operate,when he brought it up didn’t realise it came out then in,when he felt his foot get trapped he went to press the down button but pressed the tilt button up which crushed his foot and broke it. ( no training given ) So all you idiots saying driver was stupid to trap his own foot and why didn’t he just let go off button are the stupid ones.ps hes x army as well served his country whilst all you lot sat in ya wagons eating bacon butties and stinking of diesal,good on said driver hope he has a right time spending his compo 
I reckon the bellend is actually Rjan - he trapped his own foot in a taillift and done ok out of it. he is now doing celebrity openings in the hull area alongside Ronnie pickering.
war1974:
I reckon the bellend is actually Rjan
Who?
theantbox:
war1974:
I reckon the bellend is actually RjanWho?
RONNIE f***ING PICKERING 