3.8.3 Embarking and disembarking
In several cases the court determined the place of location by taking into consideration if the passengers were exposed to the hazard inherent in aviation operations. It has been taken also into consideration if the passenger was under the charge of control of a carrier or his agent. According to Godfroid, the primary test should be whether the passenger was under the control of the carrier or his agent, in addition the activity should be related to an activity of aviation. An injured passenger who did not board, but is still in the terminal will be considered outside article 17, the same applies to a passenger who had reached the baggage claim area. Article 17 applies when a passenger was injured on the steps of the terminal building on his way to board the aircraft and also when a passenger was injured on the apron by a baggage transport.
According to the U.K. Courts it is important to relate an accident to a specific flight, when cases about embarking or disembarking are being solved. It is also important to consider the passenger’s location and if the passenger was about to enter or was actually entering the airplane it would create an article 17 accident. In case an accident occurred elsewhere in the terminal, a consideration have to made whether the passenger was required to be there by the carrier.
In another case a passenger in a wheelchair was injured while being transported up the terminal’s escalator by the carrier’s
A good point that arose from the situation was that Mrs Clarke did not injure herself and that her severe reduced mobility was now recognised and respected due to this incident. Mrs Clarke seemed to recover quickly from the incident. Although she was initially distressed this was short lived. There were several bad points that should be acknowledged. Firstly, I think it would have been beneficial if a second opinion from a qualified member of staff was sought, this possibly would have prevented the situation from occurring. Secondly, Mrs Clarkes’ wishes were not respected, she was in a very vulnerable position and this I felt contributed to her being persuaded to mobilise against her will and better judgement. Mrs Clarke also ended up in a very awkward and exposed position on the floor and the way in which she was manually handled meant her dignity had been considerably compromised. Finally, Mrs Clarke was manually lifted back onto the bed which again potentially put her and the staff involved at further risk of injury. In addition to this, to my knowledge the incident was not reported.
Unfortunately, this company has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 due to the fact that they advised the applicant that they could not make the necessary adjustments to accommodate her needs. The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 does require that companies make necessary adjustments to accommodate the needs of qualified applicants. The key words to me are qualified applicants. They did use the words undue hardship in their response for denial but they would have to prove that modifying 2 elevators is actually a hardship to their company. Now, if they can prove that there may be no violation but the proof of burden is on them. Also, they may also say that the applicant is
Plaintiff held onto the safety bar located just outside of the shower with her left hand, reached backwards with the right arm to grasp the right armrest of the wheelchair, which had been left in the same spot as when she entered the shower, and began to feel the wheelchair roll backwards away from her. With one hand still on the safety bar and the other on the armrest of the wheelchair, Plaintiff was unable to upright herself and instead, began to fall towards the floor. Plaintiff lost grip of the safety bar and fell on the floor at which time, Plaintiff suffered immediate pain in her back and lower bottom. Plaintiff, screaming in pain, was unable to get up and because of Plaintiff’s location on the floor, the nurse call button was out of reach. Plaintiff was eventually found by medical staff on the floor of the bathroom approximately 8:33am. See Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions No. 15.
This unit is primarily concerned with those people who are most dependent upon your assistance. The level of assistance they need can vary from needing help to get out of a chair to being completely dependent on others to move them, to turn them over and to alter their position in any way, for example, if they are unconscious or paralysed. It is essential that people are moved and handled in a sensitive and safe way. This is also vital for you as a worker, to prevent injury to yourself. It is possible to minimise the risk to both you and the people whom you support by following the correct procedures and using the right equipment.
I was assisting Mrs x who was not too well but Mrs x was fully mobile and only required assistance of one staff while walking Mrs x to the lavatory she felt dizzy and was about to fall I grabbed hold of her at once I shouted for more help.
Negligence occurs when a citizen has suffered loss due to the carelessness of another. The first element of a negligence case is to find if the duty of care, the obligation of an individual to hold responsibility while performing any acts affecting others, is breached (Negligence and the Duty of Care, 2013). The Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in May 2011, during the trial of French v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2011] QSC 105 demonstrates how a taxi driver breached his duty of care and therefore, would be liable for the death of his passenger (Hamilton, 2011).
In an engineering workplace it is important for the employee to report accidents as this is part of the RIDDIR legislation and this needs to be followed by the engineering industry. By following the legislation you can prevent any accident or incidents occurring to any employee or employer within any workplace.
Staff injuries that include lower back discomfort and MSD’s are considered of the most common amongst healthcare professionals (Liebert, 2007). Recent articles reflect that a staggering seventy percent of staff injuries are related to direct manual patient handling and transfers (Liebert, 2007). Staff injuries negatively affect productivity levels secondary to lost time (Liebert, 2007). This often creates a viscous cycle leaving less staff to care for more patients. This in turn increases the risks for experiencing an injury onto the overburdened and overwhelmed staff. The use of the Procedural Stretcher with
we carry out our security assesment other things will need to be consideredI i.e. is wheelchair
Maintaining a secure surrounding is a reflection of the organizational culture and an indicator of the level of compassion and vigilance that the organization has for the workers and the welfare of the patients. The management needs to improve safety and assess the causes of error during the handling of patients. As a matter of fact, the stakeholders and the policymakers need to intense their efforts to establish and structure conditions and process that will promote healthy working conditions and improve the patient safety. Health care staff need to be trained in the proper skills of handling patients with terminal and highly infectious diseases. The workers and the management should ensure that the workers are provided with the relevant protective gears while handling a patient. The cases of nonlethal activity injuries are the main reasons for sickness among the staff. Purchase and use of patient transfer and lifting facilities are the key elements of an efficient program to manage the danger of injury to patients and employees related to lifting, moving, locating or movement of patients. It will also show the level of management commitment to implement a secure patient handling program and to supply the health workers with applicable measures to avoid manual handling. The education and coaching of aid staff ought to be in gear towards assessment of hazards within the assistance work setting, choice and use of the acceptable patient lifting instrumentation and devices, and review of research-based practices of safe patient
This could sometimes be detrimental to seriously ill or wound patient, especially when it involves transporting that patient.
Patient safety is the top priority because health situation may change within few minutes depending on severity of the case. In this incident, physical injury has not taken place but the potentiality of injury is extremely high and there is a narrow space between the risk and injury. I have determined that next time i will give my first priority for safety measures no matter what area it is. In clinical practices, if my errors harm the resident, it is personally, ethically and professionally objectionable. I have learnt to place the bed to the lowest level and raise the side rails before I leave the resident’s room. Safety is resident’s right .Safety comes everywhere as priority and careful handling the elderly population is one of the higher
Even if most rights do not deal with delays, it is always useful to know what can be done could a bad situation cross someone’s path. Unexpected events come up in moments of rush, and a flight is the perfect example. This is why is very useful to know some solutions to these unexpected events.
SHARMA was providing the break relief, he noticed the patient C.K walking out of her room. The patient had managed to remove the restraints and walked into another patient’s room. Security Officer D. SHARMA requested Security Officer G. GILL to re-attend. Security Officer G. GILL re-attended at which point, clinical staff instructed site security to physically assist the patient in to a wheelchair, where she would then be restrained. Site security was able to physically assist the patient in to the wheel chair however, the patient was very resistant and made repeated attempts to scratch and bite site
Arthur Koestler whom Karski had met used Karski as one of the sources for his 1943 novel, Arrival and Departure (in which Koestler tells the Belzec/Izbica story within his own fictional tale). He would write in the “New York Times” about the difficulty of coming to terms with certain kinds of photos and witnesses: “A dog run over by a car upsets our emotional balance and digestion. 3,000,000 Jews killed in Poland cause but a moderate uneasiness; statistics don’t bleed, it is the detail which counts. We are unable to embrace the total process with our awareness, we can only focus on little lumps of reality.[…] People died to smuggle them [the photos] out of Poland […]. [N]ine out of ten average American citizens […] answered it was all propaganda lies and they didn’t believe a word of it.”1