Login Join Us
A court cannot ignore an unchallenged expert report A court cannot ignore an unchallenged expert report

A court cannot ignore an unchallenged expert report

The High Court found that the Crown Court was bound to accept an uncontested expert report if it did not have a valid reasons for departing from the...
Expert Witness Survey - Equal Representation Expert Witness Survey - Equal Representation

Expert Witness Survey - Equal Representation

Take 5 minutes to help monitor progress
Appeal in the Cause Michael Marshall against Berkshire Hathaway International Insurance... Appeal in the Cause Michael Marshall against Berkshire Hathaway International Insurance...

Appeal in the Cause Michael Marshall against Berkshire Hathaway International Insurance...

The sheriff appeal court upheld the sheriff's award of damages for injuries sustained in a vehicle accident which were assessed, in the...
A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and... A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

EWI Honorary Fellow Tony Saggers has been a drug trafficking Expert Witness since 1995, alongside a career in law enforcement that spanned 30 years....
Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

The Forensic Science Regulator is consulting on the draft for the development of version 2 of the forensic science code of practice.

News

Jennings v Otis Ltd [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB)
Wiebke Morgan
/ Categories: Case Updates

Jennings v Otis Ltd [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB)

The case: the Appellant, an experienced lift engineer employed by the first Respondent, suffered the traumatic amputation of his arm when it became entangled in lift drive machinery which he was inspecting at the Second Defendant's premises. It is the Appellant's case that the drive machinery was inadequately guarded and the accident occurred when he stumbled or lost his balance and his arm bypassed what guarding was present and went into the moving parts. It is the case on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellant's version of events is implausible and the accident occurred because the Appellant deliberately chose to put his arm through a gap in the guarding in order to undertake some work on the machinery.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Previous Article OXR v Mid and South Essex Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 2006 (KB)
Next Article Kay Linnell and Tony Saggers awarded Honorary Fellowship of the EWI
Print
549
Comments are only visible to subscribers.