Case background
Mr D was employed part-time by a restaurant company that owned a number of fast-food outlets as a maintenance worker and was based at a McDonalds outlet. Following flooding in the restaurant car park, which was preventing customers from entering the site, he was asked to come in early by the Managing Director (MD) of the company to help clear the water.
The MD instructed him to remove the mats that collect leaves and debris from the 10 drains within the carpark to help the water drain away. He was not provided with any protective clothing except for a hi-viz jacket and gloves that only reached his wrist. He was wearing his own wellington boots but in order to clear the drains he was required to kneel in the flood water and reach elbow deep into the water meaning that his skin was repeatedly in contact with it. The MD of the company stood over him while he carried out this task.
There was a known rat infestation at the restaurant which the franchisee was not taking sufficient measures to control. The flood water within the carpark therefore contained rat urine and when Mr D became unwell a few days later, he was taken to hospital and tests confirmed that he had contracted Weil’s Disease (leptospirosis).
The infection was so severe that he was kept in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for 12 days before being well enough to be discharged home after 5 weeks in hospital. Although Mr D recovered from the infection, he continued to suffer shortness of breath and persistent tiredness which restricted his ability to work. This was diagnosed as Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) and predicted to persist by the medical expert we instructed to assess Mr D who also advised that his life expectancy had been reduced by 3 years as a result of the infection.
Mr D’s employers denied that they were responsible for his illness and ongoing work restrictions. Their MD filed a witness statement categorically denying that he had instructed Mr D to clear the drains and that he had specifically told him not to. He stated that Mr D had decided to do this of his own volition. The MD admitted standing with him while Mr D completed the task, but stated that he was only there to ensure that he was not struck by any cars. In respect of protective equipment, the MD said that Mr D could have used long rubber gauntlets from inside the kitchen. These gauntlets are only used when changing the oil in the fryers and are to be kept clean for use in food preparation areas, not to be used for clearing drains.
Compensation
Clearly either Mr D or the company MD was being economical with the truth. Despite the evidence of the company MD, we persuaded the Defendant’s solicitors to enter negotiations with us and we achieved a settlement of £110,000.
How can we help?
Alex Barley is an Associate Partner in our Personal Injury team.
For further information on the above subject, please contact Alex or another member of the team on 0330 111 3131 or via our contact form.