Claiming for negligence - are training records relevent?
Discussion
A quick question for the legal experts if I may.
If someone is claiming for an industrial accident based on claiming negligence, are the training records of the person alleged to be responsible relevant to the claim?
To my mind they would be in a fairly general view, not sure if the specific circumstances would change that but would appreciate other opinions.
If someone is claiming for an industrial accident based on claiming negligence, are the training records of the person alleged to be responsible relevant to the claim?
To my mind they would be in a fairly general view, not sure if the specific circumstances would change that but would appreciate other opinions.
IANAL but it would appear relevant esp if the company wants to claim that the person alleged responsible for causing the accident has had the appropriate training in safety procedures and the correct use of any machinery involved.
When any new legislation came out we were required to attend training lectures where it was all explained. We were required to sign an attendance sheet to show we had received the input.
I believe it was to make sure any cockups were then our responsibility & that the force could avoid liability. The term 'vicarious liability' comes to mind but as ever I stand to be corrected (or ridiculed) by our learned colleagues
When any new legislation came out we were required to attend training lectures where it was all explained. We were required to sign an attendance sheet to show we had received the input.
I believe it was to make sure any cockups were then our responsibility & that the force could avoid liability. The term 'vicarious liability' comes to mind but as ever I stand to be corrected (or ridiculed) by our learned colleagues
Edited by paintman on Friday 31st July 09:58
paintman said:
IANAL but it would appear relevant esp if the company wants to claim that the person alleged responsible for causing the accident has had the appropriate training in safety procedures and the correct use of any machinery involved.
When any new legislation came out we were required to attend training lectures where it was all explained. We were required to sign an attendance sheet to show we had received the input.
I believe it was to make sure any cockups were then our responsibility & that the force could avoid liability. The term 'vicarious liability' comes to mind but as ever I stand to be corrected (or ridiculed) by our learned colleagues
Yes. Our H&S people keep getting me to sign things to say I've received such and such training. They actually say it's so we can't claim not to have been trained should anything happen.When any new legislation came out we were required to attend training lectures where it was all explained. We were required to sign an attendance sheet to show we had received the input.
I believe it was to make sure any cockups were then our responsibility & that the force could avoid liability. The term 'vicarious liability' comes to mind but as ever I stand to be corrected (or ridiculed) by our learned colleagues
Edited by paintman on Friday 31st July 09:58
gottans said:
A quick question for the legal experts if I may.
If someone is claiming for an industrial accident based on claiming negligence, are the training records of the person alleged to be responsible relevant to the claim?
To my mind they would be in a fairly general view, not sure if the specific circumstances would change that but would appreciate other opinions.
IAAL and I defend industrial accidents as a job.If someone is claiming for an industrial accident based on claiming negligence, are the training records of the person alleged to be responsible relevant to the claim?
To my mind they would be in a fairly general view, not sure if the specific circumstances would change that but would appreciate other opinions.
In short, yes the training records of the allegedly negligent employee are highly relevant.
For instance, if the employee was driving a fork lift truck and ran into a visitor for instance, the employer would be negligent for letting someone drive that FLT if they didn't have a licence and were not trained properly to use it. Those records would therefore be relevant to the Claimant and his lawyers are entitled to see them.
In our cigar factory the girls sat at a machine that was impossible to fit guards to the main access area but other areas fully covered, as it was basically a hand operated process. Safety cut off mechanisms were in place. H&S Executive accepted that comprehensive training and regular checks of safety cut off systems would be acceptable under those circumstances. Initial training for new recruits incorporated a 13 week provisional training with the proviso of meeting certain standards. This could be extended if necessary. Very few failed to complete training, some needing the extension though. They were assigned a training instructor who taught and monitored the training with records kept of progress.
Edited by sospan on Friday 31st July 17:43
You have a barrister who is getting paid to advise you, but you think that you may get a better answer from some anonymous people on the internet who like cars? Interesting view of life!
OK, some barristers are rubbish, but do you have any reason to suppose that the barrister in your case is, for some reason, completely unfamiliar with the legal principles as to disclosure of documents in civil litigation? There might be a solicitor or two as well. Perhaps you have encountered a small group of civil litigators each one of whom has never heard of any of the rules about relevance in disclosure. Gosh, that's bad luck.
OK, some barristers are rubbish, but do you have any reason to suppose that the barrister in your case is, for some reason, completely unfamiliar with the legal principles as to disclosure of documents in civil litigation? There might be a solicitor or two as well. Perhaps you have encountered a small group of civil litigators each one of whom has never heard of any of the rules about relevance in disclosure. Gosh, that's bad luck.
Breadvan72 said:
You have a barrister who is getting paid to advise you, but you think that you may get a better answer from some anonymous people on the internet who like cars? Interesting view of life!
OK, some barristers are rubbish, but do you have any reason to suppose that the barrister in your case is, for some reason, completely unfamiliar with the legal principles as to disclosure of documents in civil litigation? There might be a solicitor or two as well. Perhaps you have encountered a small group of civil litigators each one of whom has never heard of any of the rules about relevance in disclosure. Gosh, that's bad luck.
I appreciate your view but the case hasn't got to the Barrister yet, IANAL but I have asked for an explanation of why they are not required and instead of receiving such an explanation my query just gets shut down.OK, some barristers are rubbish, but do you have any reason to suppose that the barrister in your case is, for some reason, completely unfamiliar with the legal principles as to disclosure of documents in civil litigation? There might be a solicitor or two as well. Perhaps you have encountered a small group of civil litigators each one of whom has never heard of any of the rules about relevance in disclosure. Gosh, that's bad luck.
Ask if there are any training records, if not, that tells you all you need to know.
If there are records, ask for their reasons for refusal to disclose?
They would be hugely helpful
Look at Annexe C, below which lists what documents are to be disclosed, depending on type of claim, they should also be listed in the letter of claim
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/...
If there are records, ask for their reasons for refusal to disclose?
They would be hugely helpful
Look at Annexe C, below which lists what documents are to be disclosed, depending on type of claim, they should also be listed in the letter of claim
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/...
Edited by SydneyBridge on Sunday 2nd August 12:36
gottans said:
Breadvan72 said:
You have a barrister who is getting paid to advise you, but you think that you may get a better answer from some anonymous people on the internet who like cars? Interesting view of life!
OK, some barristers are rubbish, but do you have any reason to suppose that the barrister in your case is, for some reason, completely unfamiliar with the legal principles as to disclosure of documents in civil litigation? There might be a solicitor or two as well. Perhaps you have encountered a small group of civil litigators each one of whom has never heard of any of the rules about relevance in disclosure. Gosh, that's bad luck.
I appreciate your view but the case hasn't got to the Barrister yet, IANAL but I have asked for an explanation of why they are not required and instead of receiving such an explanation my query just gets shut down.OK, some barristers are rubbish, but do you have any reason to suppose that the barrister in your case is, for some reason, completely unfamiliar with the legal principles as to disclosure of documents in civil litigation? There might be a solicitor or two as well. Perhaps you have encountered a small group of civil litigators each one of whom has never heard of any of the rules about relevance in disclosure. Gosh, that's bad luck.
Some lawyers are not good at communicating with clients, and this is a sure sign of a bad lawyer. Complain, or (if you can) change lawyers, if you find that you are, as you said, being "shut down".
Being a lawyer is a professional service job, and shutting a client down is neither professional, nor the giving of a service. One of the jobs that a litigator has is to explain to the client in plain and direct terms what is happening, and why, at each stage of the case. Some lawyers, perhaps especially those working in the lower echelons of the market, and particularly if doing bulk work funded by insurers, forget that their client is not in fact the insurance company, and also forget, if they ever knew them, the basic principles of client care.
If you are not being kept informed, complain. Politely but firmly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff