pozbaird Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) No Poz. Because it happens at work simply means the workplace has to be investigated first. It may not be liable. But until there is an investigation then degree of culpability is unknown. I get that bit mate, and I do understand an employer's responsibility to do their utmost to look after their employees welfare... I just don't think they can be omni-present and stop some walloper from scudding a workmate over the napper with a stapler, or indeed stabbing them in the leg with a training pole. Edited June 14, 2015 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 It would certainly be investigated to see what the company could have done to protect the worker injured. Were there speed restrictions in place, any sort of crossing system, hazard reports or near misses filled out? If it's found that the company has done all it can to prevent this sort of accident happening, then it's on your head. If the investigation finds more could have been done, then it would apportion some, if not most of the blame onto the business. If you're walking through a shopping centre and fall on a wet floor when there's no sign there and break your ankle, you don't claim the wee cleaner woman who made an arse of it and was so stressed out she forgot to put the sign down. You claim the actual business as it's them who have the care of duty to you, as a visitor. Aye, if I was in Braehead and broke my ankle by slipping in a puddle that had no 'wet floor' warning signs, I would be in touch with Intu Shopping Centres through a lawyer. However, if I worked at Braehead, and walloped a fellow worker over the head with a 'wet floor' sign... I wouldn't expect Intu Shopping Centres to be in any sort of trouble for 'failing to protect an employee at their workplace'. It's hardly their fault a disgruntled overweight ginger decided to lamp someone with a plastic 'piso mojado' warning sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 I get that bit mate, and I do understand an employer's responsibility to do their utmost to look after their employees welfare... I just don't think they can be omni-present and stop some walloper from scudding a workmate over the napper with a stapler, or indeed stabbing them in the leg with a training pole. The injury happened to a St. Mirren employee. The injury was caused by a St. Mirren employee. The injury occurred when both were working for St. Mirren. The injury was caused by equipment owned by St. Mirren. The injury occurred on St. Mirren property. The injury happened when one St. Mirren employee got pissed off with another St. Mirren employee as a direct result of the work that they were both doing for St. Mirren. The work was being overseen by St. Mirren management. The inury has stopped a St. Mirren employee from earning wages from St. Mirren. St. Mirren are insured for such workplace accidents. Yet you don't think this has anything to do with St. Mirren? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Aye, if I was in Braehead and broke my ankle by slipping in a puddle that had no 'wet floor' warning signs, I would be in touch with Intu Shopping Centres through a lawyer. However, if I worked at Braehead, and walloped a fellow worker over the head with a 'wet floor' sign... I wouldn't expect Intu Shopping Centres to be in any sort of trouble for 'failing to protect an employee at their workplace'. It's hardly their fault a disgruntled overweight ginger decided to lamp someone with a plastic 'piso mojado' warning sign. If the plastic sign had a spike on the end of it would that make a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) I get that bit mate, and I do understand an employer's responsibility to do their utmost to look after their employees welfare... I just don't think they can be omni-present and stop some walloper from scudding a workmate over the napper with a stapler, or indeed stabbing them in the leg with a training pole. St Mirren may very well prove that they have a great H&S policy. That all staff are inducted into that policy and that yearly or half-yearly update training takes place. They may prove that all equipment is recognised to the appropriate standard and that the staff who use that equipment have had training on its use. They may prove that a supervisor was overseeing the situation. That they took quick and appropriate medical action. They may prove that there is not a culture of childish behaviour. In that case there would be little culpability against St Mirren and McGinn can then move on to sue Thommo. Edited June 14, 2015 by Sonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Aye, if I was in Braehead and broke my ankle by slipping in a puddle that had no 'wet floor' warning signs, I would be in touch with Intu Shopping Centres through a lawyer. However, if I worked at Braehead, and walloped a fellow worker over the head with a 'wet floor' sign... I wouldn't expect Intu Shopping Centres to be in any sort of trouble for 'failing to protect an employee at their workplace'. It's hardly their fault a disgruntled overweight ginger decided to lamp someone with a plastic 'piso mojado' warning sign. Maybe if the recognised industry standard was that all 'Wet Floor' signs were made of foam (due to previous spurious claims) and Braehead used Wet Floor signs made of iron with barbed wire surrounding them the just maybe Braehead would be held partly responsible for any claim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysaint Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 The injury happened to a St. Mirren employee. The injury was caused by a St. Mirren employee. The injury occurred when both were working for St. Mirren. The injury was caused by equipment owned by St. Mirren. The injury occurred on St. Mirren property. The injury happened when one St. Mirren employee got pissed off with another St. Mirren employee as a direct result of the work that they were both doing for St. Mirren. The work was being overseen by St. Mirren management. The inury has stopped a St. Mirren employee from earning wages from St. Mirren. St. Mirren are insured for such workplace accidents. Yet you don't think this has anything to do with St. Mirren? So if I go into my office tomorrow, get pissed off and throw my phone across the room and it injures a colleague (causing them to take time off) .. my work are liable??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Aye, if I was in Braehead and broke my ankle by slipping in a puddle that had no 'wet floor' warning signs, I would be in touch with Intu Shopping Centres through a lawyer. However, if I worked at Braehead, and walloped a fellow worker over the head with a 'wet floor' sign... I wouldn't expect Intu Shopping Centres to be in any sort of trouble for 'failing to protect an employee at their workplace'. It's hardly their fault a disgruntled overweight ginger decided to lamp someone with a plastic 'piso mojado' warning sign.You're right Poz, the issue can be complicated further though.First of all, like I said earlier, in this type of case a court doesn't follow a one fits all approach. They take Into account nuances in different types of employment - like I said, conduct that might be deemed acceptable / normal in one type of employment might not be deemed acceptable / normal in another. So you can't compare working in a shopping centre with being a professional sports person in that regard (although I doubt that intentionally whacking somebody with a sign would be acceptable in either!!). Secondly, a judge on examining the facts in a workplace related injury under principles of delictual liability doesn't make a straight 'guilty' or 'not guilty' decision (technically liable or not liable); they decide the amount of compensation due in total, then they apportion fault on a propotionate basis taking into account contributory negligence and fault of other parties. So for example, they may decide that compensation is £10,000 in total. Thommo is 50% liable for having a stronger throw than Steve Backley. The club is 40% liable for not training coaches in how to deal with banter when it goes too far, not having a policy relating to safe handling of training equipment, and not dealing with the situation effectively to begin with. McGinn is 10% liable for being a cocky arse and having the cheek to nutmeg our demigod striker. The court cannot make an order at that time against Thommo as he is not one of the parties to the case, so the amount in question is reduced 50% to £5,000. The difference between the club's and McGinn's culpability is 30%, therefore the club would be told to pay McGinn £3,000. Hypothetical of course... Edited June 14, 2015 by zurich_allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 If Shull's threads give me a headache - can I sue Div for failing to protect his forum users? Life is too complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Should have added, in your hypothetical (I hope!! :-D) example, if you whacked somebody over the head intentionally and that person was injured then sued, it may be decided that liability was: You - 90% Company - 10% Signage victim - 0% So the amount payable by the company would only be a tenth of the total compensation deemed appropriate by the court. It's then up to wet floor heid if he wants to take a further case to claim the rest from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 It's all that bloody paisley snails fault anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 It's all that bloody paisley snails fault anyway. That's too much of a lawyers 'in' joke! You've just opened a can of worms... or rather a bottle of snails... :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Probably nothing to do with McGinn. Prompted , forced by his Lawyer . Anybody know who he is ? An ambulance chaser more than likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 I suppose the club if they were being smart could engage a "Criminal Lawyer" and sue McGinn for disrupting the clubs sports day, namely titting around on the Javelin field... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 The injury happened to a St. Mirren employee. The injury was caused by a St. Mirren employee. The injury occurred when both were working for St. Mirren. The injury was caused by equipment owned by St. Mirren. The injury occurred on St. Mirren property. The injury happened when one St. Mirren employee got pissed off with another St. Mirren employee as a direct result of the work that they were both doing for St. Mirren. The work was being overseen by St. Mirren management. The inury has stopped a St. Mirren employee from earning wages from St. Mirren. St. Mirren are insured for such workplace accidents. Yet you don't think this has anything to do with St. Mirren? I don't think St Mirren are at fault - I think the human being called Steven Thompson is. Next question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Ok so club May gave a duty. But surely done sort of disciplinary must be taken for thomo. it may already have been done-disciplinary action is confidential and will only be made public by Thommo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 If Shull's threads give me a headache - can I sue Div for failing to protect his forum users? Life is too complicated. Aye, 10% please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Special thanks to Mr Stevie Thompson and the McGinn family for making this close season that wee bit more interesting with this debate rather than the usual shite of bubbling under is going to sign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 The H&S at Work Act is quite explicit in terms of the responsibility for employee safety being shared between the employer and the employee. If McGinn was joining in with the daft buggering about that resulted in his injury, he might find his claim could fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mc Posted June 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 That's too much of a lawyers 'in' joke! You've just opened a can of worms... or rather a bottle of snails... :-D All very well(meadow) I think ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 If I go into my work tomorrow and drop dead from a heart attack, completely unrelated to my working day, my next of kin will be guaranteed to be paid 10x my annual salary from the company's insurance tab. Despite the fact it's clearly not the company's fault. That sounds more like a discretionary benefit to me. I think people are overstating the responsibility of the club in this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 That sounds more like a discretionary benefit to me. I think people are overstating the responsibility of the club in this matter. No for me. I'll be f**king deid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8367223.stm Paisley snail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Special thanks to Mr Stevie Thompson and the McGinn family for making this close season that wee bit more interesting with this debate rather than the usual shite of bubbling under is going to sign Just had a thought. Who do you get if you cross Ally McCoist with Steven Thompson?... Gardner Spiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad saint 2 Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 maybe thommo can show that as hes was putting flag pole into ground it flew out of his hand got caught by wind and struck mcginn leg so complete accident,,,,, mcginn must prove intent ,not every case is paid out ,there will be an investigation by insure or you will get players on poor salaries engineering claims up and down the country, then you will not get any insurance,fight the case give him f,,ck all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.