Take care not to conflate your role as a contractor with your duties as an expert witness Take care not to conflate your role as a contractor with your duties as an expert witness

Take care not to conflate your role as a contractor with your duties as an expert witness

The parties disagreed on the extent of the repairs required to the joists, and the manner in which the repairs should be effected, following the...
Podcast Episode 26: Expert Advisor versus Expert Witness Podcast Episode 26: Expert Advisor versus Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 26: Expert Advisor versus Expert Witness

This month, on the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at the issues and challenges of being an expert advisor versus an expert witness, and...
Help us map those working in the UK as Expert Witnesses Help us map those working in the UK as Expert Witnesses

Help us map those working in the UK as Expert Witnesses

Have your say in this important research and be in with a chance of winning £200 in vouchers of your choice.

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Jennings v Otis Ltd [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB)
Wiebke Morgan 3081

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

byWiebke Morgan

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

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.