Published in Truckstop News February 2017.

In this issue Steven Hinchliffe of the professional drivers’ “go to” Personal Injury specialists Hinchliffes Solicitors “FALL FROM TRAILER Accident CLAIM – THE OUTCOME FOR THE INJURED DRIVER”

In the last issue Steven Hinchliffe looked at a situation experienced by a reader of Truckstop News, whose accident resulted in a claim for Personal Injury compensation.  Part 1 looked at the initial steps taken.

You will remember that my client Mr H of Rugby was helping a forklift truck driver to unload pallets of sticky tape by pulling one of the pallets from the middle of the trailer to the edge when the plastic banding broke causing him to fall off the side of the trailer.  A claim was made against his employer, on the basis that they had failed to provide him with a safe system of work, and we were awaiting their insurer’s response.

CASE STUDY – HGV DRIVER INJURED AFTER FALL FROM TRAILER – PART 2

I mentioned in Part 1 that in cases such as this insurers for employers often deny responsibility for the accident on the basis that the driver should not have been on the back of the trailer and it was therefore their own fault.  Some employers in the haulage industry have standing instructions to drivers not to assist in the unloading process, and it is this policy that insurers seek to rely on when resisting claims.  In some circumstances it could be extremely dangerous to be on the back of a trailer, giving the employer good reason to rely on their instructions to drivers.  However, it is frequently the case that the unloading process could not be completed without the driver’s assistance, as was the situation Mr H found himself in.

Just under 2 months after we wrote to his employer with details of the claim we received a letter from their insurer admitting responsibility.  This was unusual for the reasons just given, however they were not prepared to take full blame for the accident and alleged that Mr H had also been partly at fault, and asserted that his compensation should be reduced by 20% to reflect his negligence.  In support of their position they said he should have taken a hand pallet truck with him (which was not his employer’s standard practice) or should have asked for one at the delivery site (they were usually broken or already in use by someone else).  We therefore replied to the insurer rejecting their position.

After much chasing we finally received a response, in which the insurer maintained the allegation of contributory negligence, but offered to reduce the percentage from 20% to 10%.  It appeared they were arbitrarily trying to avoid paying a proper level of compensation to Mr H without a good legal basis for doing so, and in reply we sent details of legal precedents reinforcing that no reduction should apply to the amount he received.

The insurer failed to comment on the legal issues and simply made a financial offer to settle, which was about one third of what the claim was worth.  Even though Mr H had to take time off work following the accident and lost wages, the insurer refused to reimburse him.  They also continued to allege he was partly to blame without making any sensible counter arguments.  It seemed they were content to take a tough line in the hope that he would back down and accept their offer.

There followed numerous calls by us to the insurer, but we were rarely able to speak to the case handler, and when we did she just said she would review the case and get back to us, which she never did.  In the end we had to advise Mr H that Court proceedings should be started as the offer was so low.  Fortunately, this was not necessary as we received an apology from the case handler’s supervisor for the way the claim had been dealt with, and shortly afterwards an improved offer was made and the case settled.

What looked to be a claim that would settle soon after the insurer accepted primary responsibility actually took months to resolve, because of the unreasonable way in which the insurer’s case handler acted.  It was never going to be a high value claim and Mr H recovered compensation of £3,500, of which £900 was in respect of his lost wages.  However, from the time the initial letter was sent to his employer to the date of settlement was over 8 months, and which period could have been significantly reduced had the insurer not acted so unreasonably.  Despite the delay Mr H was very happy with the outcome, and as readers will know he returned to us some years later following a further accident.

All of my Truckstop News articles appear on my firm’s website at www.hinchliffes.co.uk in the “Latest News” blog link on the homepage.

You do not have to be a professional driver to seek our help – anyone hurt in an accident (eg members of your family or friends) can contact us for advice.

Steven Hinchliffe, solicitor and Principal of Hinchliffes Solicitors

© Copyright 2017 Hinchliffes Solicitors

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM SOLICITORS:-

If you have suffered any form of accident or contracted an industrial disease contact personal injury claims specialists Hinchliffes Solicitors for immediate legal advice, to find out if you are entitled to make a claim for personal injury compensation.  All cases are conducted on a No Win No Fee and No Risk basis.

Call now on 01684 580900 to speak direct to one of our specialist claims lawyers or go to our Start Your Claim  page to submit details of your accident compensation claim online.

If you would like to know what your injury claim may be worth, please go to our Value Your Injury page.

Confused by the claims process?  Please look at our extensive FAQs.

The post FALL FROM TRAILER ACCIDENT CLAIM – THE OUTCOME FOR THE INJURED DRIVER appeared first on Hinchliffes Solicitors.