:: Home :: Business contact :: Feedback    
Header banner
HOW IT WORKS | WHY CHOOSE US | DID YOU KNOW? | GET IN TOUCH    

APIL accredited law practice logo

Why claim?
About No win No fee
Why our service?

Accident at work claims

Industrial disease compensation

 
Privacy policy     

 


 

Case law - VWF and HAVS 

LEGAL CASE LAW

Docherty v Rugby Machinery (UK) Limited 2004  

The Court of Appeal had to decide on the duties owed by an employer who had a wood working factory. 

The owners of the factory argued that the wood working industry was different from say, the steel industry or the construction industry, and that during the 1990s it was not well known that there were health risks from using powered tools.  This became a contentious area in compensation claims for vibration white finger

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision that by 1991 at the latest the owners of the wood working factory should have known of the health risks of a vibration injury suffered by workers using powered hand tools, such as sanders. 

Therefore the employer was under a positive duty to operate a system of health surveillance to check whether workers were suffering any type of vibration injury known as HAVs.  Workers who had developed a vibration injury would then have been medically advised about the personal injury and transferred to different work duties to avoid the vibration injury becoming more severe. 

The factory owner had therefore been in breach of its legal duties and was liable to pay compensation to the workers. More on this vibration injury case here    

Brookes v South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive 2005  

In this case the Court of Appeal considered the legal duties of the operators of a large works that serviced buses and coaches. 

Workers at the garages regularly used powered hand tools such as impact wrenches, drills, chisels and grinders.  Workers suffered vibration injuries caused by the vibration transmitted to their hands by the powered tools. 

The Court of Appeal gave judgment for the claimant, and held that from 1987 the owners of the garages should have known about the risk of workers suffering vibration injuries caused by the powered hand tools. 

The garage owner had failed to take steps to protect its employees from suffering HAVs and was liable to pay compensation for the vibration personal injuries.                            

If your employer has failed to take steps to reduce excessive noise in your working environment or provide protective equipment such as ear defenders etc -  you may be entitled to make a claim.

MAKE AN ENQUIRY WITH US TODAY REGARDING YOUR POSSIBLE COMPENSATION CLAIM

 

Get in touch

mobile phone 

Call 0800 0322210

chat image

Or complete our form:

 


apil logo
Copyright ⓒ 2000 - 2008 Winston Solicitors