It is a common misconception amongst the general public that a work accident claim can only really be made in highly ‘mobile’ jobs, such as construction work. This is understandable, as a high amount of work accident claims are made by individuals who work in the building and planning trades, mainly because there are more opportunities for things to go wrong and people to get injured in this type of work. However, being injured in a non-physical job (such as an office job) does not mean that the injured person is not entitled to make a work accident claim. Incorrect arguments such as a person being able to work sufficiently or without difficulty in an office job after suffering an injury simply do not stand. It is true that a construction worker may find it harder to carry out their job with an injury, though the type of profession an individual belongs to does not have any bearing on whether that individual can make a work accident claim. Below are two case studies of how two people working in office based jobs, both victims of a work accident, gained compensation for their injuries.
Jasmin Bates, an IT consultant from West Brompton, London, sustained an injury at her place of work in December 2010. As she was walking through the main lobby of the building, towards the lifts, a large oblong light bulb fell down from the ceiling and shattered in front of her, forcing her to travel to the nearest hospital to remove numerous minute shards of glass from her eyes by electro-magnetic treatment. Fortunately, no permanent damage was done to Miss Bates, although she was advised by doctors to avoid direct sunlight for two weeks and to stay at home for at least a week. The IT firm apologised to their employee Miss Bates and allowed Miss Bates to take the week from work on sick leave. However, Miss Bates was not happy with the situation as it stood. She felt that it was her employer’s fault that the accident had happened in the first place – remembering that the light bulb which had fallen had not been working for a while and wondering why it had not been safety checked. This was when she decided to seek legal advice. The case was looked into and it was concluded that Miss Bates was indeed in a strong position to make a work accident claim. She went ahead with the claim and received a large sum of compensation for her eye injuries.
The point from the above case that should be considered carefully is that Miss Bates was able to make a claim even though her work provided her with sick pay and she was able to make it back to work without difficulty in two weeks. Miss Bates was able to make a claim because she suffered an injury that could have been prevented had her work place acted with the appropriate responsibility and taken sufficient precautions; this was not done and they put their employees at a considerable risk by being negligent.
Rachel Philips from Nottingham suffered from a broken leg when she slipped on a bathroom floor at work that had been recently mopped. Rachel recalled that there had been no caution sign and complained to her employers – a management consultancy firm. Mrs Philips found her employers to be particularly unsympathetic, blaming her for her injury and even laughing when she demanded why there had not been the appropriate sign displayed outside of the lavatories. Mrs Philips’ broken leg caused her a significant amount of difficulty; she found it almost impossible to get the bus to work and it made her home life very taxing as she had two young children to look after. Her husband suggested that she claim for compensation, as clearly the injury had been the firm’s fault. Mrs Philips was nervous at first, thinking that making a work accident claim would compromise her position at work. However, legal professionals assured her that this would not be the case. She decided to go ahead with a work accident claim and was successful in gaining compensation for her broken leg.
These two case studies should show that it is not only people who work in especially physical professions who are entitled to make a work accident claim.