Levenes achieve stunning win for factory worker at Trial

A factory worker, Mr B wins substantial damages at trial plus an extra 10% damages, penalty interest and indemnity costs after Levenes correctly predicted the likely outcome.

Mr B was working in a factory processing meat for a large supermarket. He was required to collect pieces of bacon rejected by the industrial slicing line and slice bacon using a large hand slicer weighing 70kg, which was placed on a metal table.

Mr B’s workstation should have been arranged for him before the start of his shift. As he arrived at his workstation at the beginning of his shift, he noted that the metal table with the slicer on top was too far from the production line and needed to be moved closer, otherwise, he would be wasting too much time running between the production line and the table. The workstation was inefficient.

In accordance with the factory’s health and safety procedures, 2 people were required to move a slicer and would have to use a wheeled trolley to do so.

Mr B’s job involved working at a very fast pace and he and his colleagues were all very busy. He tried to get help from his colleagues working nearby and other people passing by, but no one had time to leave their own duties and help him.

As the production line was already running fast and pieces of meat was falling off the line, Mr B decided that he had no choice but to move the table on his own. 

This was the reality in the factory, and he had to deal with this task in breach of his training on previous occasions when he could not find any help.

As he was moving the table, the slicer started moving off the table and was about to fall. As he tried to stop the slicer falling, he struck his hand and suffered a complicated fracture.

Mr B made a claim for compensation in respect of his injury, loss of earnings, care and assistance he received from his partner, when he was recovering from his injury, his medical and travel expenses, as well as future losses caused by his ongoing restrictions on the open labour market, which limited his choice of work and made him less competitive when applying for jobs. As he spoke poor English and was restricted to manual work only, the injuries affected his earning capacity in the future.

Liability denied

The insurers of the factory did not accept liability for the accident and blamed Mr B for moving the table unsafely.

The accident report was completed in English by 4 different workers of Polish origin and each of them presented slightly different version of the accident. Some parts of the accident report were completed without Mr B’s involvement or approval.

As the injury turned out to be serious, Mr B asked his partner, who was also working in the factory, to take a photograph involved in the accident. The photograph showed pieces of folded tissue under 2 rubber suction caps that were supposed to hold the slicer in place. They considered that the photograph proved that the slicer was missing a leg, and this was the cause of the accident.

Levenes obtained witness statements from Mr B’s colleagues, who confirmed that many of the slicers used in the production were defective, that the pace of work was often too fast and for that reason it was difficult to find anyone to help moving tables when necessary. Apart from this all of them were critical of the work culture in the factory, where employees, who were mainly migrant workers speaking poor English, were rushed to work faster, not treated in a respectful manner and were even denied permission to use the toilet so that the production line kept going fast and without stopping.

The insurers of the factory denied that there was any problem with the equipment, argued that Mr B knew that he should not move the table on his own but chose to do it and thus was the author of his own misfortune.

Levenes issued proceedings and the case was heading for trial. The factory insurers refused to engage in any negotiations and the claim proceeded to trial, where a judge considered all the evidence.

Trial

The judge listened to the evidence provided by Mr B and his witnesses and by the witnesses called by the factory.

Mr B argued that the table should have been ready for him and positioned close to the production line and that the slicer was defective, what caused it to slide off the table as he was moving it. He further argued that in the absence of any help, he was forced to move it on his own to do his job. He argued that the investigation of the circumstances of the accident was not thorough and that the only purpose of the investigation was to conclude that he was to blame for the accident.

He noted that Mr B was trained to move the table with the assistance of another person. As the photograph of the slicer, which was taken secretly, did not sufficiently prove that the slicer was missing the leg, the judge did not accept that this was the case.

The judge concluded that Mr B’s workstation should have been prepared for him at the beginning of his shift and that for that reason his employer had failed to provide a safe system of work and take sufficient care of his safety. 

Notwithstanding, the judge decided that Mr B was also partly responsible for the accident and applied a 30% reduction of his compensation to reflect this. In other words, the court decided the case on a 70%/30% basis in favour of Mr B meaning that most of the blame lay with the factory.

A few weeks before the trial, on the advice of Levenes, Mr B had made an offer to accept settlement of his case on a 70%/30% basis, but this was not accepted. The solicitors for the factory maintained that the claim was without any merit.

As Mr B had previously offered to his opponent to accept a 70%/30% liability settlement, which was exactly the finding made by the judge in his judgment, Mr B was awarded an additional 10% of damages, penalty interest and costs on an indemnity basis.

It is often the case that insurers deny liability assuming that the injured person would get discouraged and not take the risk of taking the case to trial.

Levenes believed that Mr B had a good case, and his former employer was negligent and responsible for his injuries and losses.

Our Associate Solicitor Joanna Mackiewicz successfully dealt with Mr B’s claim with the help of Partner, Ricky Baba. Counsel for the Claimant was Daniel Bennett.

Commenting on the case, Joanna Mackiewicz said “This is a stunning win for our client, and justification for the stance Levenes took throughout the case in the face of a fierce defence from the Defendant. To have correctly predicted the outcome of the case and then made an offer to settle which matched the assessment of the judge, is particularly satisfying”

Accident at work

Our specialist lawyers can help victims involved in an accident recover compensation. You will need expert advice on what action you can take to obtain accident compensation.

You can trust in the experience and knowledge of our team of professional injury lawyers to ensure that you receive the maximum amount of compensation that you are entitled to.

Get in touch today and find out within 1 hour if you have a claim. Call us on 0800 048 2355 or request a call back now.