The Claimant received £17,500.00 for an injury suffered to his thumb as a consequence of a workplace accident. Mr A* recently instructed Ward & Rider Solicitors as a consequence of an accident at work. He was working as an agency worker in a factory in the Midlands.
His job involved using a machine which put holes through metal sheets. During the course of his employment, on one occasion the machine came into contact with his thumb, damaging the tip of his thumb.
As a result of this, he was left with a slightly deformed thumb and thumbnail. He had sensitivity and pain at the end of his thumb. He previously suffered from psychological and mental health issues in the past, and this accident made it a lot worse.
He instructed Jason Claridge, Director and lawyer specialising in personal injury and clinical negligence cases at Ward & Rider Solicitors, having previously instructed him on another case. We argued that the claim against the company was rooted in the fact that the client had not been sufficiently and appropriately trained, that he had not been provided with suitable work equipment because there was no guard to prevent this machinery from coming into contact with his hand and the operation of the machine was done by a foot pedal as opposed to a hand control which was what it should have been.
Unfortunately, the Defendant’s representatives, through their insurance company, denied liability. They argued that he had been trained, that the machine he was using was suitable for the work that he was undertaking and that they disputed liability.
Court proceedings therefore became necessary.
We obtained medical evidence from a hand surgeon and a psychiatrist. The Defendant’s solicitors refused to accept liability, but as we came towards trial they made an offer to him. There was then further offers by us on behalf of the Claimant and them on behalf of their client.
They argued that an experienced man would be partially to blame for this accident, commonly referred to as contributory negligence, and they also argued that he had signed off on training and that the machine had been used without incident for many years.
They argued that the offers they made were on a litigation and commercial risk basis only. Our argument was that the offer was clearly taking into account the fact that he had suffered both physical and psychological injuries. The claim was advanced on the basis of those injuries, plus a modest amount of travelling expenses as well as some help and assistance provided by his wife in respect of domestic activities for the first few weeks.
We argued that he was at a disadvantage on the open labour market because of the fact that he no longer wanted to work with such machinery, and he had been working in the engineering sector using saws and similar such machinery for some years.
He tried other jobs which he did not enjoy as much, including working in restaurants and as an Uber driver.
Treatment for his psychological injuries was also recommended. This was claimed for as well in the Schedule of Loss under the future treatment section.
Ultimately he accepted the sum of £17,500.00 in full and final settlement of his case. He wanted to use the money to help him retrain to allow him to find a job that would not require him to be exposed to the risk of further such injuries by working in a different working environment.
Although Mr A*’s name has been changed, this is indeed a true case run by Ward & Rider Solicitors under a Conditional Fee Agreement, commonly known as a no-win, no-fee agreement. Please speak to us in terms of bringing a claim as a result of an accident at work, road traffic accident, tripping and slipping claim in the public environment and/or a clinical negligence/medical negligence case.
We do act under a no-win, no-fee agreement in such cases. Please contact us to have a consultation.