the employer should have done the risk assessment - they should have demanded that all employees wear a helmet or sign an indemnifing waiver.
Apologies for going back to previous articles, but something bugs me.
(For clarity I think that suing the Employer was a bit of a dick move.)
Putting aside all element of blame or risk assessment or helmets were available etc, it's not a legal requirement to wear a helmet, so why are you allowed to be penalised for not wearing one?
It's not a legal requirement to wear knee pads whilst cycling, but if I got hit by a car and broke my knee and decided to sue, the court wouldn't look at me and say I should have been wearing knee pads would they...
Apologies for going back to previous articles, but something bugs me.
(For clarity I think that suing the Employer was a bit of a dick move.)
Putting aside all element of blame or risk assessment or helmets were available etc, it's not a legal requirement to wear a helmet, so why are you allowed to be penalised for not wearing one?
It's not a legal requirement to wear knee pads whilst cycling, but if I got hit by a car and broke my knee and decided to sue, the court wouldn't look at me and say I should have been wearing knee pads would they...
Or have I totally missed the point?