If you've suffered an injury in the workplace, you can claim compensation if your employer breached their duty of care – but where do you stand if you were partly to blame? The expert injury lawyers at ParrisWhittaker are experienced in representing injury claimants in the Turks & Caicos Island (TCI) and the wider Caribbean region and can help you.
The most important thing to bear in mind at the outset is that you might believe you were to blame, whether in whole or in part, for the workplace accident – but you may find out, with specialist legal advice – that you were not to blame at all. And even if you were partly to blame for your accident, you should still be able to claim injury compensation.
Contributory negligence
Where an injured person is partly to blame for their injuries (this is known as 'contributory negligence'), they could still claim compensation from the other party at fault. However, when the amount of compensation is agreed by way of settlement (or awarded by the court), the compensation will be reduced to reflect the level of contributory negligence.
For example, if your employer breached their duty of care and an accident occurs; but you were also found to be careless, liability might be assessed at 75% for the employer and 25% contributory negligence. If the total amount of compensation is $100,000 – you would be awarded $75,000 to reflect your liability.
Causation
However, a recent (unreported) case from the UK's county court illustrates how a worker's conduct can completely break the chain of causation, meaning that the employer is not liable for the injuries that ensued.
To prove a workplace injury compensation claim, the claimant must prove that the employer owed a duty of care; they breached that duty; and that the accident and injuries were a direct result of that breach. This means there must be a causative link between the employer's conduct (or omissions) and the resulting injuries.
What happened in this case?
An experienced bricklayer claimed compensation from a construction company. It is reported that he fell from the sixth level of scaffolding on a housing development site and suffered significant injuries.
He claimed that there was no inner handrail and that parts of the inner scaffold board was missing and that the defendant had breached several health and safety regulations. He said handrails were easily removed by workers and site managers were award of the practice and should have taken precautions to mitigate against such accidents.
His claim failed. The judge found on the evidence that the defendant had taken adequate risk assessments and precautions. The accident was caused by the claimant breaking the site rules, thus breaking the chain of causation.
The ruling is an important reminder that even if the employer's breach causes an accident, they may escape liability if it cannot be proved that the injuries were the direct result of that breach. Expert advice is always prudent before taking any steps to making a claim.
1 Jupp v PMC Construction (2023) unreported (Lexology)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
