# PIAB injured ankle at work



## Jumpstartdublin (28 Feb 2016)

sister injured her ankle in work car park. She was rushing and seems to have twisted ankle and fractured x 2. She was off work for 10 weeks. Had hospital and physio appointments, etc. She now says that ongoing intermittent pain - when standing a lot. Can she claim from Injuries Board? Has employer any liability ?


----------



## peteb (28 Feb 2016)

how would her employer have a liability?  Anyone can make an application to the Injuries Board.  But first they have to write to the party involved to give them 10 days to accept liability.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (28 Feb 2016)

Dunno exact circumstances. But suspect trip due to uneven surface in car park


----------



## emeralds (29 Feb 2016)

Did she report it at the time to her employers? Also is there any CCTV covering the carpark areas (which would help to validate her claim that she did indeed trip where she says she did) - though I would imagine after 10 weeks the CCTV images might be gone.


----------



## Cervelo (29 Feb 2016)

Jumpstartdublin said:


> Dunno exact circumstances. But suspect trip due to uneven surface in car park


Not trying to belittle your sister and her injuries but you did say she was "rushing" so she might have just tripped herself.
With regards liability in the car park, if its owned by the company then I would say they have a duty of care for all employee while on the premises.


----------



## Leo (29 Feb 2016)

Uneven surfaces are common enough in car parks. Unless there was a serious problem with it and negligence on the part of the employer can be proven, there's no case.


----------



## thedaddyman (29 Feb 2016)

Leo said:


> Uneven surfaces are common enough in car parks. Unless there was a serious problem with it and negligence on the part of the employer can be proven, there's no case.



you'd need the full facts before you could say that. For example if the surface was uneven, staff had complained about it and management had done nothing about it, they could still have liability. Also things like inadequate lighting could also be a factor


----------



## Leo (29 Feb 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> For example if the surface was uneven, staff had complained about it and management had done nothing about it, they could still have liability.



That's where the negligence piece I mentioned might come into play. The OP here doesn't have all the facts here, so we're unlikely to get the whole story.


----------



## 44brendan (29 Feb 2016)

Jumpstartdublin said:


> sister injured her ankle in work car park. She was rushing and seems to have twisted ankle and fractured x 2


There is an automatic assumption in the post that some 3rd party should be held to blame and be liable for compensation. I don't blame the OP or his sister for this as we seem to have created a culture that if anyone trips, falls or is injured in any way outside of their own home they should have immediate recourse to compensation from a 3rd party.
With apologies to the OP this is a big bug bear of mine. If the OP had pointed out a clear issue of negligence stated by his sister that had been reported and not dealt with by the company then I would have sympathy and agree that 3rd party liability was a probable cause. However in a scenario where any of us are inattentive in walking/running and as a result trip and suffer injury that is certainly a case where sympathy alone should be applied. Life is full of trips and falls and other incidents where compensation is not and should not be an automatic right.
Somebody has to pick up the tab for these payouts and ultimately it will not be the insurance company's but their policy holders and all of us who bear the costs.
Again apologies for the rant which may be unwarranted in this specific case but is definitely warranted in a large number of compensation cases as evidenced by the higher cost of our insurance premiums compared to almost all other EU countries.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (29 Feb 2016)

Thanks for helpful advice. Incident was on cctv it appears. Is there any potential % breakdown for liability. I.e. Could either party be liable to a greater or lesser degree. Sister is really looking for help with out of pocket expenses. She was the manager of the business unit herself- so not sure how that would affect scenario. I am fully mindful of the comments regarding such cases.


----------



## emeralds (29 Feb 2016)

Yes either side can be held liable - one side more than the other. Does she know if any complaints had been made about the car park to the employers? eg. were there potholes or broken paths that people had tripped on and then made complaints about?


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (29 Feb 2016)

Not sure to be honest and reluctant to actually 'encourage' her or give her false hope. I know from visual inspection surface is not level


----------



## Ravima (29 Feb 2016)

many employers will reimburse out of pocket expenses to prevent formal claims arising. If she had a good relationship with employer, there's nothing to be lost by mentioning the expenses.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (29 Feb 2016)

I heard that and think it's a good system especially for this case, but it's a public sector organisation and appears to be claim formally via legal or don't claim!


----------



## DirectDevil (9 Mar 2016)

Here is a link to a High Court judgment last year in a tripping case that was dismissed - http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/74A9D6478FA1015E80257DE70040E450

I make no criticism or judgment of any party involved in slipping or tripping cases. I have seen some cases where the resulting injuries have been very serious and the liability of the defendant has not been in doubt. Against that, I have seen some decidedly unmeritorious cases.

The decision gives you a flavour of the kind of considerations that arise if a case goes the full distance.


----------



## Ravima (9 Mar 2016)

I heard that and think it's a good system especially for this case, but it's a public sector organisation and appears to be claim formally via legal or don't claim!

Yip, just proves that the State still has not found enough ways of wasting money!


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (9 Mar 2016)

Thanks to all for helpful advice. Spoke with sister this evening and don't think she should / can make a claim. She was rushing when accident happened. Appears to have been a 'freak' type twist of ankle on the tarmacadam surface- albeit that surface was probably damp at time as it was early morning. She has ongoing pain almost two years later and this has been attributed to 'arthritis' from the damage to foot. Best advice one can give is to get this assessed and managed.


----------



## Jon Snow (10 Mar 2016)

Ravima said:


> I heard that and think it's a good system especially for this case, but it's a public sector organisation and appears to be claim formally via legal or don't claim!
> 
> Yip, just proves that the State still has not found enough ways of wasting money!



Yes, because having PS managers able to make those decisions without a legal process in train wouldn't be likely to create moral hazard or scandal waiting to happen at all at all, would it...! Due process is there to protect everyone.


----------



## DirectDevil (10 Mar 2016)

Brief additional point to OP.

Your sister would carry the onus of proof. That means that she would have to prove fault and do so to the standard of the _balance of probabilities i.e _something is at least 51% more likely than not.

On the outline information I think that this looks like a most unfortunate accident for which no liability attaches to anyone.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (10 Mar 2016)

DirectDevil thank you and most likely agree. How 'level' does the surface in carpark have to be ?  Sister is still not sure what happened as she was in shock after. Expects she slipped on wet surface- As was early morning


----------



## DirectDevil (11 Mar 2016)

Jumpstartdublin said:


> DirectDevil thank you and most likely agree. How 'level' does the surface in carpark have to be ?  Sister is still not sure what happened as she was in shock after. Expects she slipped on wet surface- As was early morning



It would not have to be level to be safe. Many slanted or sloped areas of ground can be perfectly safe.

The general principle would be that the area should be reasonably safe for use for it's intended purpose and free of any unusual or unreasonably located hazards.

A slip on a wet surface would not raise a presumption of the presence of a defect. Context matters. If this was a slip on a wet spillage in a supermarket I might be of a very different view.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (11 Mar 2016)

Very helpful analysis. I expect sis should get legal advice.


----------



## DirectDevil (15 Mar 2016)

P.S. Don't forget that there is a time limit within which to lodge a claim - 2 years I think.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (15 Mar 2016)

Thanks. Think no liability from other side applies.


----------



## Wool12 (12 Apr 2016)

Not trying to belittle your sister and her injuries but you did say she was "rushing" so she might have just tripped herself.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (12 Apr 2016)

Yes. All this has come to light during discussion so it's good to talk  - plus her ongoing injury is curable. Success on all fronts


----------

