30 March 2011
The Government is pushing ahead with plans to reform ‘no win no fee’ deals and overhaul the civil-justice system, as part of its efforts to release businesses from the fear of a compensation culture.
In a new consultation launched yesterday (29 March) and aimed at creating a simpler, quicker and more proportionate civil-justice regime, the Government is proposing to expand the use of an online system for resolving road-traffic accident personal-injury claims of up to £10,000, by making it available to process employers’ liability and public liability personal-injury claims.
The Government also plans to introduce automatic referral to mediation in small-claims cases, automatic referral to mediation-awareness sessions in higher-value cases, and consulting on making mediated settlements enforceable by courts.
Other proposals include raising the maximum value for small claims from £5000 to £15,000, enabling more cases to be heard through the small-claims process rather than through a costly trial.
Announcing the plans, Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said: “With no major reform for 15 years, the civil-justice system has got out of kilter. Businesses and other people who have been sued can find that spiralling legal costs, slow court processes, unnecessary litigation, and the ‘no win no fee’ structures, which mean greater payments to lawyers than to claimants, are setting them back millions of pounds each year.”
According to the Government, statistics provided by insurers show that in 1999 claimant solicitors’ costs were equivalent to just over half the damages agreed, or awarded. By last year, however, average claimant costs represented 142 per cent of the sums received by injured victims.
Seeking reform in this area, the Government also confirmed it would be implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s blueprint to reform the cost of civil litigation. These plans include:
•Abolishing recoverability of success fees and associated costs in ‘no win no fee’ conditional-fee agreements. Under the current regime, defendants must pay these additional costs if they lose. Under the reforms, claimants will pay their lawyer’s success fee, and will therefore take an interest in controlling the costs being incurred on their behalf.
•Allowing damages-based agreements (also known as contingency fees) in litigation before the courts. These are another form of ‘no win no fee’ agreement, under which lawyers can take a proportion of the claimants’ damages in fees, and would increase the funding options available to claimants.
•Introducing a 10-per-cent increase in general damages, and introducing a mechanism to protect the vast majority of personal-injury claimants from paying a winning defendant’s costs.
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said the reforms would help tackle “the perverse situation in which lawyers can be awarded a greater proportion of payouts than claimants” and “help put an end to the fear of a compensation culture”.
Following the announcement, EEF head of health & safety, Steve Pointer, said: “This is a welcome step forward in delivering a system that reflects a fair balance between rewarding those who have been harmed, and the significant efforts of companies to manage risks. The current system of high legal costs for small claims is encouraging poor claims and is failing to meet the needs of genuine claimants, insurers and employers.”
He added: “Today’s reforms must now be followed by further action. The HSE is already doing a great deal to reduce the paperwork burden imposed by regulation, and this needs to be followed through into the compensation system, where straightforward changes could make a real difference.”
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber attacked the proposals, saying: “This review has nothing to do with justice. It is simply lining the pockets of insurers at the expense of claimants seeking compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of others.”
Thursday 31 March 2011
Thursday 17 March 2011
Planning loading and unloading of vehicles
Three million people in Great Britain work on or near vehicles as part of their regular job. Getting on and off a vehicle to carry out loading/unloading operations and working at height on the vehicle are often viewed as incidental to the main job. Because of this, the risks involved may not be properly considered by both workers and their managers. The economic and human cost of the falls from vehicles that we know about was over £36 million in 2004/05.
Careful assessment of the tasks involved and implementation of simple and cost-effective safety controls can reduce the risk of falls from vehicles significantly and avoid potential losses for your company.
Get help from the workers who use the vehicle – they know how the job is really done and normally have good ideas about how to make it safer and more efficient.
You must think in terms of a hierarchy of controls:
plan to avoid work at height where you can;
where you can’t, make sure you use work equipment to prevent falls:
first choice – vehicle-based systems;
second choice – on-site systems;
where the risk of a fall can’t be eliminated, use work equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall;
always consider measures that protect everyone at risk (eg platforms and guardrails) before measures that only protect the individual (eg safety harness).
Careful assessment of the tasks involved and implementation of simple and cost-effective safety controls can reduce the risk of falls from vehicles significantly and avoid potential losses for your company.
Get help from the workers who use the vehicle – they know how the job is really done and normally have good ideas about how to make it safer and more efficient.
You must think in terms of a hierarchy of controls:
plan to avoid work at height where you can;
where you can’t, make sure you use work equipment to prevent falls:
first choice – vehicle-based systems;
second choice – on-site systems;
where the risk of a fall can’t be eliminated, use work equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall;
always consider measures that protect everyone at risk (eg platforms and guardrails) before measures that only protect the individual (eg safety harness).
Unprotected Blade
A theme park worker severely injured his right hand as he was cutting wood using an unguarded rotating saw blade.
Steven Gardiner was working at Loudoun Castle Theme Park in Ayrshire cutting up sheets of plywood on 29 October 2009.
As the saw he normally used was not available for this task due to an operating fault, Mr Gardiner was using a table mounted circular saw that he had never used before. When setting up the saw he saw he noticed that the blade guard was not attached to the riving knife but, as he did not know how to fit this guard he left it to one side.
Mr Gardiner started working with a colleague, but after he left he decided to carry on alone as he only had a few sheets of plywood left to cut. As he pushed a long strip of wood through the blade using both hands to keep it straight, his right hand slipped forward and came into contact with the blade, cutting it badly.
He bound his hand up with his t-shirt and called for help. He was taken to hospital, where he needed a six hour bone graft operation to save his fingers. Doctors used bone from his hip and wire to rebuild his thumb, fingers and tendons. He needed two further operations to have metal plates inserted into his hand and remove scar tissue. He will need further surgery.
Mr Gardiner still cannot bend his thumb and doctors do not know if full movement to his fingers will ever return. He has difficulty tying laces and doing buttons, cannot clench his hand and has had to give up his hobby of DIY. Before the park closed, he was moved from his former post as a maintenance worker to an office based role as he was no longer able to carry out his previous duties as a maintenance worker.
Today at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court Parkware Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and were fined £5,000.
HSE Inspector Eve Macready said:
"This was an entirely avoidable incident which will affect Mr Gardiner for the rest of his life. Not only has he had to change his line of work, but he has also had to give up a hobby and has difficulty performing tasks as simple as tying his shoelaces.
"Mr Gardiner's injuries would not have happened if the blade guard had been fitted. Employers have a duty to make sure machinery made available as work equipment is safe."
Steven Gardiner was working at Loudoun Castle Theme Park in Ayrshire cutting up sheets of plywood on 29 October 2009.
As the saw he normally used was not available for this task due to an operating fault, Mr Gardiner was using a table mounted circular saw that he had never used before. When setting up the saw he saw he noticed that the blade guard was not attached to the riving knife but, as he did not know how to fit this guard he left it to one side.
Mr Gardiner started working with a colleague, but after he left he decided to carry on alone as he only had a few sheets of plywood left to cut. As he pushed a long strip of wood through the blade using both hands to keep it straight, his right hand slipped forward and came into contact with the blade, cutting it badly.
He bound his hand up with his t-shirt and called for help. He was taken to hospital, where he needed a six hour bone graft operation to save his fingers. Doctors used bone from his hip and wire to rebuild his thumb, fingers and tendons. He needed two further operations to have metal plates inserted into his hand and remove scar tissue. He will need further surgery.
Mr Gardiner still cannot bend his thumb and doctors do not know if full movement to his fingers will ever return. He has difficulty tying laces and doing buttons, cannot clench his hand and has had to give up his hobby of DIY. Before the park closed, he was moved from his former post as a maintenance worker to an office based role as he was no longer able to carry out his previous duties as a maintenance worker.
Today at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court Parkware Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and were fined £5,000.
HSE Inspector Eve Macready said:
"This was an entirely avoidable incident which will affect Mr Gardiner for the rest of his life. Not only has he had to change his line of work, but he has also had to give up a hobby and has difficulty performing tasks as simple as tying his shoelaces.
"Mr Gardiner's injuries would not have happened if the blade guard had been fitted. Employers have a duty to make sure machinery made available as work equipment is safe."
Health and Safety Fine for Printers
A Tunbridge Wells printing firm has been fined after intentionally removing safety guards from its printing machines, potentially putting staff at risk of injury.
Printwells Limited, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for not ensuring machinery guards were in place when employees used the machines, despite being served two Improvement Notices for the same offence in 2003.
Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court heard that on the 13 April 2010 two HSE Inspectors visited the company's premises unannounced.
The Inspectors found machine guards, known as safety interlocks, had been deactivated on two machines. The guards should have been in place to protect employees from accessing dangerous parts of the machinery.
HSE's investigation found the interlocks had been removed to allow the supervisor for the department to undertake routine maintenance work, found to be common practise within the Tunbridge Wells branch of Printwells.
Printwells Limited, of Chapman Way, North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent pleaded guilty to two counts of regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The firm was fined a total of £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500.
HSE's inspector Guy Widdowson said:
"Printwell employees were needlessly put at risk. There could easily have been a serious injury during the maintenance of these machines. It is purely down to luck that a serious incident did not occur at this company before.
"As this case demonstrates, HSE will take robust enforcement action against any company found removing safety devices, whether an injury has occurred or not."
Printwells Limited, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for not ensuring machinery guards were in place when employees used the machines, despite being served two Improvement Notices for the same offence in 2003.
Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court heard that on the 13 April 2010 two HSE Inspectors visited the company's premises unannounced.
The Inspectors found machine guards, known as safety interlocks, had been deactivated on two machines. The guards should have been in place to protect employees from accessing dangerous parts of the machinery.
HSE's investigation found the interlocks had been removed to allow the supervisor for the department to undertake routine maintenance work, found to be common practise within the Tunbridge Wells branch of Printwells.
Printwells Limited, of Chapman Way, North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent pleaded guilty to two counts of regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The firm was fined a total of £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500.
HSE's inspector Guy Widdowson said:
"Printwell employees were needlessly put at risk. There could easily have been a serious injury during the maintenance of these machines. It is purely down to luck that a serious incident did not occur at this company before.
"As this case demonstrates, HSE will take robust enforcement action against any company found removing safety devices, whether an injury has occurred or not."
HSE Visiting Construction Sites
During 2009/10 there were 1,287 injuries and four workers died while working in construction across London, all of these occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities. These will be the main focus of the latest inspections by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
On the unannounced visits - starting on 14 February - regional inspectors will ensure that sites are managing work at height safely and that they are in good order, as well as checking that the risk of exposure to asbestos is being properly managed.
Last year inspectors visited 230 sites and 202 contractors. They were forced to issue more than 35 prohibition notices to stop dangerous work relating to working from height.
HSE's Principal Inspector Barry Mullen said:
"This will be the fifth year that we have run the inspection initiative across London and we anticipate that that there will be examples of both good and bad practice - those where employers are taking all the measures they can to protect their workers and those where safety is way down the list of priorities.
"A lax attitude to health and safety in one of the more dangerous industries is not acceptable, especially when many of the incidents are completely avoidable by taking commonsense actions and precautions. As we've demonstrated in previous years, we will not hesitate to take action if we find poor practice that is putting the lives of workers at risk.
"This year, as part of ensuring risks from asbestos are properly managed, we will also be checking that, where appropriate, asbestos surveys have been carried out prior to any refurbishment work. Many workers believe that, because asbestos has been banned as a building material, it's no longer a threat to them. But that simply isn't true. Any premises built or refurbished before 2000 could contain asbestos."
On the unannounced visits - starting on 14 February - regional inspectors will ensure that sites are managing work at height safely and that they are in good order, as well as checking that the risk of exposure to asbestos is being properly managed.
Last year inspectors visited 230 sites and 202 contractors. They were forced to issue more than 35 prohibition notices to stop dangerous work relating to working from height.
HSE's Principal Inspector Barry Mullen said:
"This will be the fifth year that we have run the inspection initiative across London and we anticipate that that there will be examples of both good and bad practice - those where employers are taking all the measures they can to protect their workers and those where safety is way down the list of priorities.
"A lax attitude to health and safety in one of the more dangerous industries is not acceptable, especially when many of the incidents are completely avoidable by taking commonsense actions and precautions. As we've demonstrated in previous years, we will not hesitate to take action if we find poor practice that is putting the lives of workers at risk.
"This year, as part of ensuring risks from asbestos are properly managed, we will also be checking that, where appropriate, asbestos surveys have been carried out prior to any refurbishment work. Many workers believe that, because asbestos has been banned as a building material, it's no longer a threat to them. But that simply isn't true. Any premises built or refurbished before 2000 could contain asbestos."
Construction Sites Still Dangerous
Nearly a third of the construction sites visited in High Peak last week were found to be so dangerous that workers' lives were being put at risk.
Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited 56 sites in the borough on 8 and 9 March, as part of an initiative aimed at reducing deaths and injuries in one of Britain's most dangerous industries.
A total of 17 sites were found to be so far below the required standards that inspectors had to issue formal enforcement notices.
[1]
A site inspected in New Mills
The four-week initiative, which was launched on 14 February, saw inspectors across Great Britain target refurbishment projects − the worst performing sector of the construction industry.
Several of the sites visited received more than one enforcement notice either stopping work activities immediately, or requiring improvements to be made within a set time period.
In total, inspectors issued 23 prohibition and 11 improvement notices in High Peak, with the vast majority relating to unsafe work being carried out at height.
The latest figures show that, on average, a construction worker is injured in High Peak every three weeks. Across the East Midlands, four workers were killed and there were 645 injuries during 2009/10.
Nationally, nearly three quarters of all deaths occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities.
Nic Rigby, HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, said:
"We saw a total of 68 different contractors in High Peak and it's disappointing that so many of them are ignoring their health and safety responsibilities - especially after we publicised the fact we would be visiting the area.
"It's particularly concerning that so many of the enforcement notices we issued related to unsafe work being carried out at height. This is the number one cause of deaths in the construction industry.
"HSE will not hesitate to use its powers to stop work that isn't being carried out safely, and we expect to see a significant improvement in standards over the next few months."
More information on construction safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/construction[2].
Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited 56 sites in the borough on 8 and 9 March, as part of an initiative aimed at reducing deaths and injuries in one of Britain's most dangerous industries.
A total of 17 sites were found to be so far below the required standards that inspectors had to issue formal enforcement notices.
[1]
A site inspected in New Mills
The four-week initiative, which was launched on 14 February, saw inspectors across Great Britain target refurbishment projects − the worst performing sector of the construction industry.
Several of the sites visited received more than one enforcement notice either stopping work activities immediately, or requiring improvements to be made within a set time period.
In total, inspectors issued 23 prohibition and 11 improvement notices in High Peak, with the vast majority relating to unsafe work being carried out at height.
The latest figures show that, on average, a construction worker is injured in High Peak every three weeks. Across the East Midlands, four workers were killed and there were 645 injuries during 2009/10.
Nationally, nearly three quarters of all deaths occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities.
Nic Rigby, HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, said:
"We saw a total of 68 different contractors in High Peak and it's disappointing that so many of them are ignoring their health and safety responsibilities - especially after we publicised the fact we would be visiting the area.
"It's particularly concerning that so many of the enforcement notices we issued related to unsafe work being carried out at height. This is the number one cause of deaths in the construction industry.
"HSE will not hesitate to use its powers to stop work that isn't being carried out safely, and we expect to see a significant improvement in standards over the next few months."
More information on construction safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/construction[2].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)