Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Manager fails in bid to win £100,000 compensation from former employer

Money
Money

A sales manager has failed in his bid to win compensation from his former employer after falling at work and blaming a tiny chip in a floor for the accident.

Mark Shackleton raised an action claiming £100,000 in damages after an incident at an industrial estate at Dyce.

The 58-year-old, of Swinton, Manchester, suffered a soft tissue injury to his lower back and was unfit for work for more than three months.

He underwent extensive physiotherapy.

He sent an e-mail to his manager at M-I Drilling Fluids UK telling him he had been in the process of moving boxes obstructing an emergency exit path when he fell.

He claimed the chip in the floor caused him to stumble – but the Court of Session in Edinburgh was told it was no deeper at any point than an eighth of an inch.

And in a written decision, judge Lady Wolffe said: “On the whole evidence I find that the depth of the chip is simply too shallow to pose any relevant risk to the safety of the pursuer.

“The presence of the chip did not give rise to a risk of a person tripping and falling when walking, whether facing forwards or moving sideways, in either direction through the doorway and into the hallway.”

The judge said she also accepted evidence that there was no need for Mr Shackleton to have taken on the task of moving the boxes on June 4, 2013.

She added: “The pursuer failed to take care in the most basic way, by failing to look to see where he was placing his feet, which he accepts he could have done.”

Lady Wolffe said that even if she were to accept Mr Shackleton’s account about how the accident was caused it would be no avail to his case.

She added: “The chip did not pose a relevant risk.

“The accident was, in a practical sense, precipitated by the pursuer’s decision to move these boxes.”