16 October 2023 Wiebke Morgan 935 Case Updates 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 More links Link to judgement Share Print Tags NegligenceExperts’ joint inspectionAccidentEngineering05. Rules and Regulations06. Receiving Instructions07. Working with Instructing Parties12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements Related articles Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve? When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert. The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) Switch article OXR v Mid and South Essex Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 2006 (KB) Previous Article A day in the life of an Acoustics Expert Witness Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.