Many Brits are reluctant to make negligence claims a new report has found. Despite the fact that 120,000 injuries were reported in the work place in the past 12 months, a staggering quarter of those surveyed would not make a claim if they were seriously injured using faulty or unsuitable equipment in the workplace.
Muiris Lyons, president of not-for-profit campaign organisation the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), commented: “Many of us may have suffered an injury through no fault of our own at work but in the workplace there seems to be a real reluctance to make a claim in cases of negligence.
“Most employees will have built a rapport with their employer over a period of time and if a case of negligence occurs in the workplace, some individuals could feel embarrassed or think that there may be a stigma attached if they are seen making a claim against their employer. Some may fear that if they make a claim, their career may be put at risk or that they might be looked upon as a trouble maker.
“There seems be a perception that those making personal injury negligence claims are taking advantage of an unfortunate situation. And yet the reality is that the negative stigma attached to individuals making a claim if they’re injured in the workplace is an unfair one.
Muiris concluded: “People are right to make a claim if they are injured through an employer’s negligence – it’s an employer’s duty to keep employees safe in the work place. Employees should therefore be able to feel empowered to stand up for their rights when it comes to cases of negligence at work.
“As a not-for-profit campaigning organisation, APIL’s advice to individuals in any case is to gather and state the facts to a specialist injury lawyer as quickly as possible after the injury has occurred – supported by evidence including the employee’s accident log book and any records that your GP may hold about the injury.”
The research, commissioned by APIL and undertaken by Opinion Matters, was carried out amongst 1,151 adults living in the UK.
It appears that the current presumption of the english judiciary is that the claimant is not exaggerating, or lying about, his or her injury, and a curious inversion of the principle of the claimant proving his claim on the balance of probability seems to occur, it is for the defendant to prove that it didn’t happen as alleged.
The inclination of the insurance company therefore is to offer an ‘economic settlement’ at an early stage so as to limit the escalating costs on both sides.
They recover their costs through increased EL insurance premiums, I dont know of any poor insurance companies.
This is quickly seen by employees as a low risk opportunity to make a bit of cash on the side, and if the workplace is unionised so much the better, the solicitors are already laid on & paid for.
Lord Young in his ‘Common Sense, common safety’ review missed a trick when considering the ‘compensation culture’, the only way to reduce the number of fatuous & trivial EL claims is to put the claimant on risk for costs.
If someone is injured, or suffers harm because of something my employer has not done, or got wrong, I am the first to argue that compensation is appropriate.
But twenty years experience in heath & safety has taught me that the compensation culture is very much alive and kicking.
I thought it necessary to make these observations in counterpoint to your article.