Ecclesiastical has defended and won a legal case against a charity dog walker injured while working for a animal care charity.
A civil damages case taken by a charity dog walker, which the insurer said could have had “wide-reaching implications” for anyone working on a natural surface like grass.
The case of McBride –v– Gables Farm Dogs and Cats Home centred on alleged injuries sustained by the dog walker while exercising dogs in the field owned by the animal care charity, was dismissed at Plymouth County Court last month.
Ecclesiastical has called the judge’s decision as a “victory for common sense”.
On 8 March 2008, charity dog walker Helen McBride was exercising a dog by walking it around a field owned by her employer, Gables Farm Dogs and Cats Home (GFDCH), when she slipped, sustaining an injury to her hip which she claimed caused pain and discomfort for three years.
Ms McBride subsequently filed a civil action for damages against the charity on the grounds that her employer had a duty to ensure floor surfaces are safe under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
GFDCH’s insurer, Ecclesiastical, defended the action on the basis that the claimant’s allegations were unsupportable in law.
When the case came before Plymouth County Court on 4 February, Deputy District Judge Challan dismissed the action and ordered Ms McBride to pay the defence’s costs.
David Bonehill, Claims & Risk Services Director of Ecclesiastical said of the decision: “This was a very pleasing result and a victory for common sense. The decision to fight the claim really supports what Ecclesiastical is all about.
“A defeat in this case would have forced any employer whose staff work on grass, fields or any kind non-artificial surface to review their practices and potentially spend vast sums of money providing some type of artificial surface. Schools could have found themselves in the position in which outdoor PE lessons would have to be cancelled because conditions were too muddy.
“We identified the potential implications of the result of this case very early on and, as we believed we had a very strong case, we knew it was important to fight this case on behalf of all our customers who might face similar claims in the future. We are very pleased with the result and for being able to help our customer in their hour of need.”
Medico-Legal News Source: PostOnline
