Accidents and Apprentices


Apprentices are prone to accidents in the workplace as much as any other employee

Author: Dennis Chapman
Reading time: 1 minute

This article is 9 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Apprentices are prone to accidents in the workplace as much as any other employee. In a recent court ruling an apprentice lost 4 fingers whilst aiding another member of staff to operate a poorly guarded ‘tube expanding machine’.

The fingers were cleanly severed off and fortunately 2 were reattached, however the ring and little finger were lost. As such the Apprentice was now disabled as per the Equality Act 2010; he suffered difficultly conducting a number of everyday tasks.

Upon investigation into the failing of the machine, It was clear that whilst the apprentice was aiding another member of staff who was not trained to use the machine that they should have been further supervised as they were both apprentices. Further the machine had not been correctly safety guarded. The employer was therefore in breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and fined £8000 in compensation, and £2740 in costs.

Dennis Chapman

In remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.