A work accident compensation claim is a legal process by which an individual seeks compensation for damages incurred due to a work accident. This can include medical expenses, lost wages, rehabilitation costs, and other damages.

At Forbes Solicitors we offer free consultations to people who have been in an accident at work and sustained a personal injury. Our Personal Injury Solicitors work on a No Win No Fee basis to recover compensation for work accident victims whether they were employed, self employed or just visiting a business at the time of the accident.

If you or a member of your family were injured in a workplace accident, or suffered due to a health and safety hazard that was caused by the fault of another person or an employer, please contact us for a free consultation with a specialist work accident Lawyer.

UK employers have a duty of care to ensure that their work environment meets minimum safety standards. You may have been provided with faulty equipment to work with or you may not have received adequate training for your job. If you have sustained an injury that could otherwise have been prevented you can claim compensation by contacting our Work Accident Solicitors.

Employers must have insurance cover for these types of accidents and injuries and they have to keep your job open for you. If you decide to claim compensation for your injuries the employer is not allowed to treat you in a way that is different than if you had not claimed for the accident.

Forbes Solicitors has a team of specialist Employers Liability Lawyers dealing with compensation claims representing the employees of all types of companies ranging from small business through to large multinational companies.

To find out if you can claim compensation, contact us today for a free consultation.

The claimant was working as a carer using a hoist to move a service user when they sustained a groin injury and subsequently a fractured wrist as a result of the leg giving way. The recovery period was 18 to 24 months. The claimant alleged a breach of the manual handling and defective equipment regulations. Liability was denied. The case settled shortly before trial. Damages were awarded at £9450.

The Claimant was employed by the Defendants'. During the course of their employment in 2020, the claimant was reaching to remove a large tyre from the top of a rack when the weight of the tyre caused the claimant to drop it, as a result it struck the Claimant causing injuries to their face neck and back. The claimant made a claim under the Manual Handling Regulations alleging their injury was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Defendant, its employees or agents acting in the course of their employment. The Defendants admitted liability. The Clamant was off work several months and undertook a course of physiotherapy. They recovered a total of £18,000 plus costs.

The Claimant worked as a motor engineer and on the date of the accident was installing an engine in a Fiat Ducato motorhome. The engine had been removed and the Claimant was to install a new one. Unfortunately, when the Claimant was installing the new engine, one of the lifting eyes gave way and the engine fell down injuring the Claimant’s upper limb. The claimant contacted Forbes Solicitors to make a claim for the accident he had suffered at work. When Forbes Solicitors contact the Defendant, the Defendant denied that the Claimant was an employee and argued that they were self-employed and responsible for their own training and safety. After stern negotiations, our Personal Injury experts were able to obtain admission that there was limited space to work and a failure to provide the right equipment. The claim was issued in Court and the parties both relied on expert evidence and the case was settled for £75,000.

The Claimant was employed as a Teaching Assistant at a School for pupils with special needs. In 2021 the Claimant was in a classroom when a pupil with complex needs and a history of threats of violence towards staff, threw an object at the Claimant and assaulted the Claimant. Colleagues intervened to prevent further injury.

The Claimant contacted Forbes Solicitors and brought a claim alleging the injury was caused by the negligence of the Defendants, in that they failed to provide the claimant with suitably trained support staff, failed to act on complaints from the Claimant and other members of staff that the pupil was going to seriously hurt someone and failing to take into account a plan that specifically referred to the risk of the pupil attacking staff.

As a result of the injury, the Claimant was off work for lengthy period and changed jobs as a result of a fear of being assaulted again.

Court proceedings were issued. The Defendants denied any negligence however offered the Claimant £15,000 which was accepted.

The Claimant was working in a welding bay, which was formed from an 8-foot steel frame, with curtains to separate the bay from adjacent bays. In one of the adjacent bays, another employee, who was operating a jack, caused the jack to collide with the 8-foot metal frame, which then collapsed, causing the 100-kilogram metal frame to fall on to the Claimant’s lower back, pinning them to the work bench.

The Claimant suffered severe bruising and soft tissue injuries to the lower back and remained off work for 11 months.

The Claim was intimated in the MOJ Portal. The Defendants did not respond on the issue of liability.

Medical evidence was obtained and court proceeding were intimated, alleging that the Defendants negligently, or in breach of reg.5(1) of the Workplace Regulations, failed to maintain the workplace and the equipment devices and systems in an efficient state, and/or in efficient working order or good repair, thereby exposing the Claimant to a foreseeable risk of injury due to another untrained and unsupervised employee using equipment incorrectly, which was a danger and would foreseeably cause injury, for which the Defendants, as employers, were vicariously liable for the actions of that employee.

Court proceedings were issued, and the case was allocated to the Fast Track.  Prior to Trial the Defendants made a Part 36 offer to settle the claim in the sum of £18,000, which the Claimant accepted.