came across an interesting case during the week there in the newspapers
the personal injury case high court had awarded 53 000 euros to a woman
over a knee injury that she sustained during a stock take in a petrol station
when i saw a stock take in a petrol station it piqued my interest because i have a background
about 20 years of experience of petrol stations and doing stock takes so it kind of
puzzled me to put it mildly as to how somebody could injure themselves
doing a stock take nevertheless that's what occurred in this case and the lady in question
she was a trainee assistant manager in a topaz petrol station she was doing a stock take she was
hunched down apparently on her knee or on her knees and that's important
doing the counting to magazines when she stood up then her knee popped
and when her knee popped she suffered a bucket handled here of the lateral meniscus of her right
knee she sued topaz and she went to the high court with that claim topaz denied liability
mr justice robert eager awarded the claimant 53 682 euros plus costs in the high court he
said there appeared to be no measures addressed in training with regard to lower limb injuries apart
from lifting weights so remember she's down on the ground squatting or claiming to be squatting
basically counting magazines on a shift level slow down or in a stock taking or in the stock press
the high court found that the employer failed to carry out his duty to identify risks for the task
of stock taking at a height or level that required kneeling or squatting and that appropriate
equipment had not been provided to prevent injury and the award as i say was 53 682 an engineer
gave evidence on behalf of the claimant and said that a large build probably increased the risk
topaz appealed the award however and it went to a three-judge court of appeal they set aside the the
award and said that there was no credible evidence before the trial judge which couldn't support
the finding of liability against topaz if the court of appeal says that there was no credit
credible evidence before the trial judge which could have supported his finding of liability
against topaz how did he arrive at that finding that's the first question that across my mind
cctv footage of the incident was not viewed by the engineer or the legal team of the claimant
or herself until the morning of the trial in the court of appeal and when they looked at
it according to the court of appeal it showed something quite different from the case made by
the plaintiff up to that point in time it showed she squatted on her left knee but critically was
kneeling on her right knee and this is not what she said because right up to the commencement
of the child her case was premised solely and exclusively on an injury she suffered as a result
of prolonged squatting topaz came to meet came to court to meet that case which was according
to the court of appeal entirely abandoned without a backward glance by the plaintiff
when it emerged from a viewing of the cctv that in truth this is not how the accident happened at all
i love the phraseology there and the wording by the court of appeal whoever wrote that decision
uh entirely abandoned without a backward glance i have a vision of topaz employee or former employee
or petrol station employee walking out of the high court having discovered that the cctv
did not support her case at all and walking out without as the court of appeal described
a backward glance by the plaintiff interestingly the court of appeal said something else that
i found very very interesting and for a person who likes reading who likes words
who thinks that words matter and who finds great amusement and great entertainment
and great diversion in some of the decisions from the high court and the higher courts the supreme
court and court of appeal some of the wording of the judges is well worth a read and if you
are interested in words if you're interested in language if you're interested in reading some
of the judgments are well worth waiting for the phraseology that's used some of it is archaic but
it is excellent but in this particular case the court of appeal said that the logical consequence
of the position adopted by her engineer was that every employer would have to have every employee
or prospective employee medically vetted to decide whether they might be subject to particular risks
requiring a bespoke risk assessment to carried out to be carried out to jude's head it cannot be
seriously suggested the court went on to say that the employer by looking at a person is to decide
whether special medical assessment is called for he said and this is where the language gets good
it says such a proposition has only to be stated to demonstrate its absurdity
so the conclusion of this trial judge as to the foreseeability of this injury was not
unsupported by credible evidence he held so court of appeals set the award aside the proposition
has only to be stated to demonstrate its absurdity it's a particularly good phrase because the next
time you come across somebody who is trying to argue with you about the earth being flat
or wednesday not coming after tuesday or about the anti-vaccine brigade you can say such a
proposition only has to be demonstrated or only has to be stated to demonstrate its absurdity
anyway hope you find the video useful it is to do with the personal injury claims high court
its negligence cctv footage did not support the contention of the plaintiff and the argument would
again as i say across my mind was how the high court judge found liability against topaz when
the court of appeals said that there was no credible evidence before the trial judge
which could have supported his finding of liability against topaz hope you find the
video useful if you do i'd appreciate if you would give the thumbs up down below thanks a lot