Lifting Injuries
Manual handling and lifting tasks occur in many forms of employment from nursing to brick laying.
Manual handling does not just refer to lifting, The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 apply to a wide variety of manual handling activities including pushing, pulling, carrying, supporting or moving by hand or bodily force.
If you have or a loved one has suffered an injury at work due to the negligence of an employer contact one of our accident at work lawyers for specialist legal advice. You can either fill out our online enquiry form, request a call back or call us direct on 0800 915 4650.
What should employers be doing?
The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 require employers to:
AVOID - the need for hazardous manual handling
ASSESS - the risk of injury from any hazardous manual handling that is unavoidable
REDUCE - the risk of injury from hazardous manual handling, so far as is reasonably practicable
Employees also have duties with regard to manual handling in the workplace. They are required to:
- make proper use of any safety equipment provided
- adhere to any systems of work laid down
- co-operate with health and safety matters
- report any manual handling hazards in the workplace
- ensure that their own actions do not put others at risk.
The most typical types of injury caused by manual handling are musculoskeletal disorders or MSD's.
George's story
George was responsible for lifting large tyres from a steeply inclined conveyor and putting them on a rack behind. But the braking system was not adequate and the operator had no direct control over the flow of tyres. The tyres would build up and lock as the force of the conveyor continued. It was in clearing such a jam of tyres that George injured his back. Unfortunately, he did not report the accident before leaving his shift.
The employers denied firstly, that the accident ever happened and secondly that there was a breach of duty and that the equipment was unsafe.
Unusually the case went all the way to trial where we were successful. The Judge at Trial praised the way in which George's case had been put together. It was the specialist knowledge of the team that had made the difference between George winning and losing his case.
