Work accident

KEY INFORMATION
CLIENT NAME	Grzegorz Radecki*
AGE OF CLIENT	42
INJURY SUMMARY	Accident at work involving a machine to make mixture for cakes, took place at the Defendants factory.
CASE OUTCOME	Case settled in March 2020 and client awarded £220,000

*Name of the claimant has been changed for safeguarding reasons.

WHAT HAPPENED

Our client was given basic induction training for the job that he had been employed for as a packer, so his induction was for this job role only.

About two weeks into working for the defendant he was moved into the bakery section to work on the machines to make mixture for the cakes. He was never given any training for these machines. He was shown how to use the machine by his colleague, who also worked in this department. Prior to the accident, our client used the machine about 5-6 times. Everything he learned about this machine was taught by watching other colleagues operating this machine.

When the crumble mixture was not discharging into the discharge bin, he removed the safety key, opened the top lid, the machine stopped working and then he closed the lid and the machine started working again. Mr. Radecki did this hoping the blockage will discharge into the discharging bin again. It did not work so he removed the discharge bin and put his right hand up into the machine to try to remove the blockage. When Mr. Radecki put his right hand up the machine, suddenly and without warning, three of his fingers were severed. He started shouting and screaming to his colleagues and at the same time kept pushing the stop button on the machine, which was not stopping the machine. He does not know if there was a fault on this as it should have stopped the machine and it did not. His colleagues appeared and they quickly alerted other members of staff as to what had just occurred.

First aider helped right away, and called the emergency services.

Mr. Radecki was immediately prepared for surgery and had a six-hour operation, which unfortunately didn’t succeed. Very distraught, his blood pressure had elevated, and now is taking medications ever since.

The defendant denied liability, they claimed that he had been provided with training on how to use the machine and should have been aware of the safety measure of how to unblock it.

The defendant in support of their denial provided a training document showing that Mr. Kowalski had been trained on the machine. Our client knew for certain that he had not been trained on this machine as everything he had learned was from watching his colleagues when they used this machine. He actually saw them remove blockages whilst the machine was still running by removing the bin underneath the machine and their hand inserted to remove the blockage. There was a work culture of how things were being done and then there are documents stating how they should have been done. In the past prior to the accident, he had inserted his hand from the bottom up into the machine to remove a blockage and no one ever told him not to do this or that it was wrong.

HOW WE HELPED

Solicitor sent  our client the disclosure documents and there were two training documents sent both for the machine. One training document dated on July 2017, but actual training was given on December 2017 some five months later. The other training document was on the day of the accident.  Grzegorz believed that this was an update after the Health and Safety visit.

When Health and Safety visited the workplace following the accident, they requested training documents. These could not be produced. The reason being was because he was never trained for using this machine and then incredibly, they found the training document which they used in support of their denial.

Grzegorz told us that he never had the training and that his signature must have been forged. We issued proceedings on the grounds that the defendant had committed fraud with falsifying the training document with our clients’ signature. The original training document was requested via a Court Hearing in order for us to review this in detail, but the defendant stated that they do not hold the original in their possession.

SETTLEMENT

The Defendant employer denied liability throughout the case - blaming Grzegorz for his own misfortune and failing to comply with company policy and procedure.

Despite evidence disclosed by the Defendant employer, our lawyer was confident of a successful outcome. 

The claim settled for a sum of £220,000. The claims covered injuries, loss of earnings, treatment, care, aids, and equipment. In negotiating a settlement, contributory negligence as well as litigation risk were taken into account.

HOW CAN AMADELE LEGAL SERVICES HELP?

We are experienced in handling claims relating to all serious and catastrophic injury. Established for over 11 years, we offer a nationwide service and work on a ‘no win, no fee’ approach.

If you have been injured at work and want to know if you are eligible to claim, get in touch with our experts. Call us on 0203 369 8522 or contact us online today.