Clyde & Co Successfully Defend HGV Personal Injury Accident Claim

• Published date: 09 May 2020
• Author: Ms Kate Duffy
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Health & Safety, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: Clyde & Co

Clyde & Co have successfully defended a claim in which it was alleged our client was responsible for serious injuries suffered by an articulated lorry driver during his employment. The driver sustained injuries after an articulated lorry and trailer unit rolled over him as he was attempting to couple them.

Our client, a haulage and storage company, was found not liable for the accident and the Claimant's injuries. Whilst a failure by our client to provide a suitable induction and risk assessment was identified by the Court, it was considered not to be causative. The Court emphasised that "if there was a breach of duty, the Claimant is still required to show that the breach was a cause of the injury."

The Claimant's claim was dismissed.

Background

The Claimant, a trained and very experienced professional driver, sustained serious injuries following an accident at work on 24 February 2015 when a tractor and trailer unit rolled over him. Neither the brakes of the tractor nor the trailer were applied at the time.

Clyde & Co acted for the First Defendant (D1), the haulage and storage company, employers of the Claimant. The Claimant had worked for the Defendant in an agency capacity for a number of months, and had become an employee approximately two weeks pre-accident.

The Claimant also pursued a claim against the Second Defendant (D2), a self-employed individual who had deposited the loaded trailer in a yard.

The Claimant's task on the date of the accident was to drive the tractor unit to the yard and collect the loaded trailer. Whilst the Claimant was undertaking this task, he was seriously injured. The immediate cause was a failure to apply the handbrake in the tractor unit compounded by the fact the brake in the trailer unit was not applied at the time of the accident.

The Claimant alleged D1 failed to provide:

• Adequate training and supervision. It was alleged the induction process was inadequate as well as training in the safe coupling/uncoupling of tractor and trailer units process;
• Risk assessments and a safe place of work by failing to risk assess the accident locus formally; and
• A safe system of work and equipment generally, as well as further preventative measures such as chocks, automatic parking brakes and alarm systems.

The allegation against D2 was failure to engage the trailer parking brake once deposited at the yard.

The issue of liability was determined as a preliminary issue.

Accident

In identifying the circumstances by which the accident...