Bitten by dog while on work duties

LegacyUser

Hi folks

A job I left recently had me doing outdoor duties which involved calling to people's properties.

One day, I was nipped on the leg by a dog outside one of the properties. I conducted my business at the property, and was on my way. When I got back to the office, I noticed that the dog had partially broken the skin and my colleagues advised me to get a tetanus shot immediately, which I duly did.

Anyway, I reported the incident to our Health and Safety person, did an incident report, and was told that they would refund me the €20 that I had to pay to get the tetanus shot.

This was over a year ago and despite numerous emails (about 9) from both myself and my manager from the job, they have not reimbursed me. I am seriously frustrated. Its only €20, but its the principle of the situation now, as much as the money.

I last heard from them on 25 March, when they told me they'd be in contact in a few days.

Where do I go from here? I'd almost go to a solicitor (although I might be laughed at if I did!) just to shake them up a bit, but for such a small sum, it wouldn't be worth it.

What would you do??

callaway92

Get a solicitor go €20? You have to be joking.

But since you went to the effort or writing an essay a fair response is due.

I'd say just leave it. They are probably deleting every email your are chasing them with and you seem to be causing yourself too much stress over such a small amount.

Forget it and move on. I'm curious to see other suggestions mind you.

s15r330

€20, this has to be a joke. A solicitor for €20. You've little to be worrying about.

Ranjo

I understand you're still going after this over the principle of it. Think of the time/effort/frustration you're putting yourself under. Drop it, forget it and move on.

CPTM

I had a similar gripe with my last employer. It wasn't the money, more the principle of it all.

Edit: Sorry hit submit by accident..

In the end I realised it was just part of a long list of things I didn't like, so I left after they all added up.

Here's an idea - Leave early someday to the tune of 20 euro. It's a small protest, probably not much impact, but you've made your point and you get your claim in time instead of currency.

TallGlass

CPTM wrote: »

I had a similar gripe with my last employer. It wasn't the money, more the principle of it all.

Edit: Sorry hit submit by accident..

In the end I realised it was just part of a long list of things I didn't like, so I left after they all added up.

Here's an idea - Leave early someday to the tune of 20 euro. It's a small protest, probably not much impact, but you've made your point and you get your claim in time instead of currency.

Think he has left the job!

Small claims court maybe?

callaway92

TallGlass wrote: »

Think he has left the job!

Small claims court maybe?

Oh jesus...He's already gone..I didn't cop that.


Seriously OP..Move on from the €20!!!!!

MoodeRator

FFS not another one!

somesoldiers

TallGlass wrote: »

Think he has left the job!

Small claims court maybe?

That'll cost €25

Flatzie_poo

TallGlass wrote: »

Small claims court maybe?

The SCC will cost €25 to open a claim.

OP is out of pocket for €20. That makes no sense.

Swallow your pride and move on OP, there's more important things to life.

LegacyUser

OK, I think one or two of ye have taken me up wrong. I'm not actually going to get a solicitor, I said that in jest.

It isn't that I "have little to worry about". Its the principle of the thing. I'm not losing sleep over it. I got bitten by a dog while performing my work duties and the employer hasn't even had the good grace to pay me the money I had to give over. I was sore as a boil for a few days after aswell (ever get a tetanus shot?) Believe me, I wouldn't have been next, nigh or near the area I was in only for my job.

In response to the "FFS not another one!", I'm not on the make here. I literally want my €20 back. This all seems quite silly in isolation, but I have been treated with almost contempt by the employer and it isn't good enough in my eyes.

zoobizoo

How much time have you spent emailing and mulling this over?

For the sake of the price of three pints I'd let it go.

frag420

TallGlass wrote: »

Think he has left the job!

Small claims change court maybe?

:cool:

Avatar MIA

OP,

They are probably afraid that if they paid you €20 they'd be admitting some liability. I'd be fairly sure that's the reason.

Anyway, the company doesn't owe you anything unless they owned the dog that bit you. So, the advice from your fellow employees was to get a tetanus. I presume you would have done this regardless.

It looks like the H&S lady acted out of turn saying you'd get it back, she probably genuinely thought you'd get it back. Company management said no for legal reasons.

You could go back to the house where you got bit and ask for the €20. Be careful of the dog at that house though. He bites.

brightspark

If you have left youare unlikely to get the €20 especially as they probably got you to sign a document on leaving that closes off any claims you may have has.


However I would just ask them what procedures they have put in place to prevent a recurrence and maybe notify the HSA, the paperwork and time involved will hopefully cost them more than the €20.

Avatar MIA

brightspark wrote: »

However I would just ask them what procedures they have put in place to prevent a recurrence and maybe notify the HSA, the paperwork and time involved will hopefully cost them more than the €20.

How is the company negligent?

Miaireland

I assume you submitted the receipt for payment of the shot. If not they will not pay out until they get it. Otherwise give the accounts department a shout and see what the story is.

brightspark

Avatar MIA wrote: »

OP,

They are probably afraid that if they paid you €20 they'd be admitting some liability. I'd be fairly sure that's the reason.

Anyway, the company doesn't owe you anything unless they owned the dog that bit you. So, the advice from your fellow employees was to get a tetanus. I presume you would have done this regardless.

It looks like the H&S lady acted out of turn saying you'd get it back, she probably genuinely thought you'd get it back. Company management said no for legal reasons.

You could go back to the house where you got bit and ask for the €20. Be careful of the dog at that house though. He bites.

Both the company and the dog owner have liability.

judeboy101

You've now developed a fear of dogs and have a permanent scar. 20k easily.

Avatar MIA

brightspark wrote: »

Both the company and the dog owner have liability.

Why does the company have liability. They provided employment that entailed the OP to go to houses. Were they supposed to provide training as to what to do when approaching people at houses. Would it not be reasonable to assume this is a skill a person should be proficient at.

But, it just goes to show why the company didn't pay the €20. They would have opened the door to liability. The home owner lost control of their dog and are possibly liable.

brightspark

Avatar MIA wrote: »

How is the company negligent?

If an employee is injured at work then unless the company had fully risk assessed and controlled any hazards (as far as reasonably practicable) then they are negligent.

Was the employee issued any PPE? was the employee adequately trained?

If the answer to those and other questions is no then the company is usually considered negligent.

Avatar MIA

judeboy101 wrote: »

You've now developed a fear of dogs and have a permanent scar. 20k easily.

:pac: And strangers, and doors the colour of the house he visited.

Avatar MIA

brightspark wrote: »

Was the employee issued any PPE? was the employee adequately trained?

What PPE's would be required going door to door :pac:

Murt10

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What PPE's would be required going door to door :pac:

A dog repeller for starters.

Here's one in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiY5vThzMVY


Also, you may be entitled to Medical Care from the Department of Social Welfare. Employer will be obliged to fill in a report for them acknowledging accident

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/disability_and_illness/medical_care_scheme.html

brightspark

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What PPE's would be required going door to door :pac:

A good pair of steel toe cap boots to kick the dog

In reality probably no PPE would be suitable, however the OP should have received training in how to deal with dogs etc.

Also there should have been a procedure for obtaining medical attention following the dog bite...not just colleagues suggesting a tetanus shot.

In hindsight the OP should have reported to their Safety Person immediately following the injury who should then have sent them immediately for medical attention.

Avatar MIA

Murt10 wrote: »

A dog repeller for starters.

Here's one in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiY5vThzMVY

I must be half dog, that thing was setting off something in my ears!

If you gave those to employees you'd have a deafness case to defend

In fairness, I was waiting on someone to say shin guards.

Avatar MIA

brightspark wrote: »

In reality probably no PPE would be suitable, however the OP should have received training in how to deal with dogs etc.

WALKIEEES

selous

E20 for a tetnus? my last one cost me E60 including doctor visit.

Avatar MIA

selous wrote: »

E20 for a tetnus? my last one cost me E60 including doctor visit.

GP only card?

brightspark

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Were they supposed to provide training as to what to do when approaching people at houses. Would it not be reasonable to assume this is a skill a person should be proficient at.

On what basis should that assumption be made?

Employers cannot "assume" a person has skills without some form of proof, lack of that proof will cause some problems in any case.

The main reason most of us are given "manual handling" courses is that it puts the onus back on us not to lift incorrectly etc., the companies that provide the most "safety" course tend to be the ones with bigger HR/legal departments who know the courses can limit exposure to claims.

No course=No proof of training=No proof the person knew how to perform the task safely.

Avatar MIA

brightspark wrote: »

On what basis should that assumption be made?

On the basis that employees don't have to be trained not to incorrectly use the toilet bowl for fear they end up drowning.

Maybe there is case law on such. I would think the liability is with the householder.

Ninjavampire

If you are considering going to a solicitor for 20 quid, no harm in asking a solicitor what your options are in terms of damages, which could be more than 20!

Being injured at work is a common grievance that can be successful under the right circumstances. Plus if you have the paper trail showing this was an issue from day one, and your company refused to reimburse you, you might have something.

Also, if the company agreed at any point to pay for your doctors visit, it could be argued that they already admitted some liability.

FrostyJack

This came to mind.

Ninjavampire

Avatar MIA wrote: »

On the basis that employees don't have to be trained not to incorrectly use the toilet bowl for fear they end up drowning.

Maybe there is case law on such. I would think the liability is with the householder.

What job involves going to the toilet as one of your responsibilities?

If you want to use the toilet during work hours, you are taking any risk incurred from operation of the apparatus upon yourself.

Avatar MIA

Ninjavampire wrote: »

What job involves going to the toilet as one of your responsibilities?

If you want to use the toilet during work hours, you are taking any risk incurred from operation of the apparatus upon yourself.

It's still on the work premises, and anything that happens there is the responsibility of the employer. If you fell on slippery bathroom floors do you think the company wouldn't be liable?

Ninjavampire

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It's still on the work premises, and anything that happens there is the responsibility of the employer. If you fell on slippery bathroom floors do you think the company wouldn't be liable?

The employer would only have to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees. That's why there would be a difference between an employee drowning by themselves when trying to use the toilets and slipping in the bathroom.

Now if the employee drowned in the toilet because of some defective toilet seat, then the employer could be liable, but only if they didn't take the proper steps and precautions in ensuring a safe bathroom experience.