Joneseys Blog

You might wonder where this comes from.

These days cars are such an everyday part of all our lives that the very idea of a car being a weapon isn’t even considered.

But it is enshrined in the law that once you are in charge of a motor vehicle you are responsible for your actions and it is acknowledged it is in fact, or can be used as a weapon.

A recent case  discussed this very point when a pedestrian  made a claim for compensation for injuries caused by a police car which collided with her whilst she was crossing the road.

Miss Smith  was 16 years old at the time of the accident. She had been on a night out with her friends in the centre of Nottingham. She was crossing a main road when she was struck by a police car responding to an emergency call which had passed through a red traffic light.

The road was four lanes wide. Miss Smith  had walked across two lanes and the impact took place in the middle of the third.

The evidence was that at the last moment she had tried to run across in front of the rapidly approaching police car, but it had swerved to the right making the collision inevitable.

The first hearing found Miss Smith 75% responsible for the accident, she  should not have attempted to cross before it had passed; by attempting to cross in front of the approaching police car she had shown a reckless disregard for her own safety, whereas the only criticism to be levelled against the driver was that he had been travelling between 5 and 10 mph in excess of a safe speed.

Miss Smith appealed and this is where the Court considered whether a could be construed as a weapon.

The police car was travelling at 45 mph as it approached the junction. If there was any slowing down as it did so, it was, as the judge found, by a few miles per hour only.

Before braking to avoid the accident, the speed of the vehicle had increased to 45-50 mph.

The driver acknowledged that he had read and was familiar with the Nottinghamshire Police Response and Pursuit Driving Policy and he ought, therefore,  to consider the prevailing traffic conditions. He knew that a large number of pedestrians could be expected to be in the vicinity at that time of night, some of them under the influence of drink, and that the car parks and bus station were on the other side of the road from the restaurants and bars. He could expect pedestrians to be crossing the road without using the pedestrian crossings.

The Appeal Court found in all the circumstances the driver was negligent in travelling at a speed between 45-50 mph through the traffic light controlled junction.

On the driver’s own evidence he did not see S step off the pavement.

Nor did he see her walk to the point where her presence did alert him.

That was when she had already reached the middle of the second lane. At that moment he was doing between 45 and 50 mph in an area where he could expect pedestrians to be crossing the road. That was too fast and Miss Smith was in the road for an appreciable time.

The driver failed to keep a proper lookout for the speed he was doing and on the evidence he plainly should have seen Miss Smith.

Although Miss Smith  put herself in danger  there was no justification for the judge’s finding that she showed a reckless disregard for her own safety.

The major cause of the injury she suffered was her being struck by the car travelling at an excessive speed in circumstances where it could not be brought to a halt in time to avoid the accident. She was more to blame for her misfortune than a pedestrian crossing the road in front of an ordinary car because she failed to heed the flashing lights and the siren but the major responsibility for the damage was the negligent driving.

The Appeal Court found the Police driver 2/3 rds to blame.

Essentially the Court had found that in a battle between car and pedestrian, the pedestrian is always going to come off worst, and as such a car should be driven in a  careful fashion where it is likely that pedestrians will be crossing the road, even with blue lights on.

I hope this informs but if you need any help on any accident claim please email me or call me on 01623 448034

Russell Jones

Fidler and Pepper

Solicitors

is that sometimes they cause accidents. 

Well actually quite a lot of the time they cause accidents.

And sorting out who is at fault is not always obvious.

In a recent case involving a van and motor bike, the obvious answer wasn’t the right one.

A van was trying to come out of a side road, to turn right onto a main road.

It hit a motorcyclist coming down the road and caused a nasty accident and injury.

Normally traffic joining a road  like that would be responsible  for the accident  but in this case, the motorcyclist was overtaking the lorry and doing so at speed and using the ‘hatched’ white area before the junction.

As it was the van driver was found 20% at fault and the motorcylist 80% as a result of excess speed and for using the hatched area knowing that there were frequent junctions along the road.

Not perhaps the first way it would have been seen, but clearly after investigation with solicitors on either side then the facts were tested in Court when a compensation claim was brought.

If you are involved in an accident or need advice please contact me  by email or on 01623 448304 and I will be happy to assist

Russell Jones

Fidler and Pepper

1 Low Street

Sutton in Ashfield

Nottinghamshire

Tripping cases are  some of the most difficult cases to deal with, both in terms of  an injured person bringing a claim, and the feeling that the claim shouldn’t be brought in the first instance.

But they often cause severe injuries,  including broken wrists and hips as  it’s an accident that catches most people completely unaware and often in a very awkward place.

In a recently reported case, a lady tripped in a hole in a grass verge outside her house.

Fortunately, although nasty, her injuries weren’t as bad as they could have been.

But should you be able to claim for tripping in a hole in a  grass verge?

Or is it something that you should ‘just get on with’ and accept as part of life?

The Court thought the lady should get compensation for her injury, but the local authority appealed saying that it had not breached it’s duty of care to  pedestrians using that  verge.

The Authority alleged that the hole did not amount to  a danger  requiring them to take any step to repair it.

The Court was shown various photographs taken at least three years after the accident, including some which indicated that the hole was then approximately two inches deep.

The injured party then  gave evidence that those photographs showed how the hole appeared 3 years before, but that the size of the hole was greater at the time.

In addition she said she had complained to council officers about the hole but nothing had been done.

The Appeal Court agreed with the Judge’s findings on the basis that her evidence was clear and honest and that the hole was large enough  for an  adult to step into.

Despite being a hidden danger, the local authority had been warned and could reasonably have been expected to have made repairs to the hole. It followed that the local authority was in breach of its duty.

There’s a few things that stand out here.

One is that there was no photographs taken at the time of the accident, which would have helped her case. In any tripping cases we are involved in, we advise that photographs and measurements are taken immediately. In the end the Judge found her a truthful witness but independent evidence makes this job a lot easier.

Most importantly the Council had been warned about the state of the verge and had chosen to ignore those warnings.

And I suspect that this went a very long way to securing the ‘win’ for the claimant.

So I think that properly answers the questions posed.

Should you be able to claim for a trip – yes if the evidence shows it caused an injury.

And is it really fair on the local council’s budgets – yes if they had received adequate warnings about problems previously but chosen to ignore them.

If you need any help about any accident claim please don’t hesitate to contact me by email or on 01623 448304.

Russell Jones

solicitor

As severe weather warnings sweep the country, employers are being encouraged to double check their risk assessments.

It’s not rocket science and a lot comes down to good common sense.

Risk analysis is not a question of dull probability and companies should use their most imaginative staff to dream up unlikely scenarios to protect employees.

A recent  Court case involved a plumber  who was asked to mend a leaky radiator in his  University employer’s  library. He found that the dripping radiator had soaked the surrounding floor, so to avoid getting his clothes wet he covered the area with plastic bin bags before lying down to carry out the repair.

Having  finished the repair and stood up, he slipped on the wet bin bags and fell heavily, hitting his face and damaging his teeth.

He sued the University, arguing that he should have been provided with waterproof clothing – saying that the need would have been identified if the University had carried out a proper risk assessment and considered the risk of his working in wet conditions.

The case was heard first in the County Court, where the judge said that the University should have provided a waterproof mat as a matter of health and safety, not just comfort, as the plumber might have caught a cold if he had spent the rest of the day in wet clothes. But the judge also decided the employee  was 50% at fault so reduced his compensation in half.

The University appealed, arguing that there was no foreseeable risk of injury from damp clothes, merely a risk of discomfort, but the High Court dismissed this and upheld the original decision.

This case illustrates how tough the courts continue to be when it comes to cases of employers’ liability.  What may seem to be minor details can have major consequences and employers need to think far outside the obvious.

But Courts are also prepared to look at employee’s actions as well. and that’s why they found him 50% to blame for  his own injuries.

You need to have a good practical look at the processes as far as possible, as well as keeping up to date with current requirements.  And the people doing the job are often best equipped to identify the risks, so it’s worth involving relevant staff in the process.

If you need help in any of this please  email me or  contact me on 01623 448304

Russell Jones

I hope everyone had a great Christmas   and is planning to get away at least somewhere this year and doesn’t suffer any accident like the couple below did.

It seems that Camels don’t leave the news at the moment whether ridden by wise men or  holidaymakers.

Just before Christmas the Courts reported on a personal injury claim  by  holiday makers in India.

A couple had decided to go on a ‘camel safari’  – and were both to ride on a camel accompanied by the Holiday representative  on another camel, and it was his first time assisting with the camel safari.

None of the organisers spoke English and the Rep was the go between on everything

It seemed everything was sorted until just out of the Hotel gates when the Camel  started ‘making sidesteps in a very jaunty manner’.

Sadly the couple were thrown from the camel and both sustained a serious injury.

The couple quite properly wanted to make a compensation claim and sought advice from a solicitor to sue  the Holiday company who organised things.

I’ve blogged before on the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992.

Putting it simply, they say that you can sue the UK holiday company if the ‘whole deal’ was booked together.

In this case the couple had booked flights and accommodation separately so the Court decided  they couldn’t claim under this  law.

But the Couple also argued a further claim.

They said that the Holiday company, in providing a Holiday rep  to accompany and give instructions has assumed responsibility  for the reasonable safety of the excursion.

And the Court accepted this argument and gave them compensation.

The important thing to realise is that each of these cases is fact sensitive and it’s only be digging deeper and finding out the detail that cases like these can win.

If you have had an accident or want advice about an accident please don’t hesitate to email me or telephone me on 01623 448304

Russell Jones

If you have an accident that’s not your fault and are injured in it, and then try to claim compensation,  undoubtedly you will be accused of being a scrounger and even worse if you use a solicitor to get a proper amount of compensation, even more bile will be piled upon you.

But it’s becoming more and more clear that the honest innocent  injured party, or even the solicitor they use to get their compensation,   is not likely to be the cause of  the ‘huge increase in motor premiums’.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has launched an inquiry into the effect personal injury claims have actually had on rising motor insurance premiums.

The investigation  will focus on the supply  of third party vehicle repairs and credit hire replacement vehicles to claimants.

The evidence the OFT has gathered already  suggests that private motor insurance premiums paid in the UK rose by around 12  per cent between 2009 and 2010, and by a further nine per cent in the first three quarters of 2011.

The increased cost of third party non-injury claims, which include credit hire replacement vehicle and third party vehicle repairs, are also factors which have had a notable impact and if you have read my previous articles on these issues, you will remember that many of these costs are one insurance company trying to recover monies from another.

As a result, the OFT has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there are features of the UK’s private motor insurance market that restrict and distort competition relating to the provision of third party vehicle repairs and credit hire replacement vehicles to claimants.

In particular, it has found that:

• Private motor insurers responsible for meeting third party claims for credit hire replacement vehicles and/or vehicle repairs appear to have only limited control over the choice of provider and appear to find it difficult to assess the extent to which the costs claimed are reasonable.
• Rival private motor insurers, brokers and credit hire providers may therefore have the opportunity, and the incentive, to carry out practices which allow them to generate revenues through referral fees, while simultaneously inflating the costs that the third party insurer has to meet. This in turn may contribute to car owners having to pay higher premiums.
• The OFT also has concerns about the provision of motor legal protection cover to car owners and has called on the Financial Services Authority to work with private motor insurers, as soon as possible, to ensure car owners have access to appropriate information when purchasing this cover.

It’s clear that  there is a lot more to the story than the cost of road accident claims   and  that premiums actually paid have not risen nearly as much as the insurance industry claimed; that motor legal protection cover (Before the Event Insurance) is poor value for money; and that arrangements for  credit hire and vehicle repairs raise serious and quote often unnecessary cost  and expense in the claim process.

If you want any advice on  an accident claim please don’t hesitate to email me or call me on 01623 448304

Russell Jones

In  the UK today there are tens of thousands of ‘off-road‘ vehicles.

Some are motorbikes, whether trail or motocross, some are go-karts and others builders trucks, cranes and forklifts.

Some are and some are not required to be insured under the Road Traffic Act (RTA).

And that’s the problem.

Whilst the Motor  Insurers Bureau (MIB) was designed to pick up ‘uninsured claims’ where the person causing  the accident  wasn’t insured, the MIB are finding ways to avoid any liability in these cases.

RTA insurance is not needed to drive anything in your back garden, or on a builder’s site  or for vehicles  which are only used on private land.

But once these vehciles are used on public land, and an accident happens, then problems occur.

Having dealt with several of these injury  claims I know just how hard the MIB will fight to avoid liability.

And in the end, even if the injured party was completely innocent and wasn’t involved with the use of the off road vehicle  and simply in the  wrong place at the wrong time,  it could be that the claim fails.

If you need any advice about this sort of claim,. or any compensation claim  at all then please  email me or call me on 01623 448304.

Russell Jones

After winning the case  and getting compensation for injuries and care, many people find that the amount is reduced drastically as they try to use it to get back on track or support themselves after being injured.

If  you are on  capital assessed benefits, then the amount of compensation awarded can be taken into account when  you receive it and your benefits are reassessed.

One  way of protecting  the compensation you have received is to set up a personal injury trust.

This will allow you to retain the use of the compensation while still receiving benefits.

This might seem unfair  on the government and tax payers but compensation awarded for injuries from an accident that was not your fault is  not to take you off the benefit system but to assist you in coming to terms with the effects of the injury.

We can assist setting up these injury trusts for you and advise on the best route to preserve your compensation.

If you need any assistance with this type of scheme of any other matter relating to a personal injury please don’t hesitate to email me or call me on 01623 448304

Russell Jones

It’s sometimes hard to find topical things to blog on but this morning was  one of the easier ones.

The Court of Appeal heard a case yesterday  (14 December 2011).

Miss D, who was an elderly  lady , was visiting Santa’s Grotto with her family   when sadly she had an accident.

The Grotto was in a Store and they had contracted out the running of the Grotto to another company.

Whilst visiting the Grotto,  Mrs D fell over  which caused a serious injury.

Mrs D  wanted to sue Santa for compensation saying that it  was his Elf’s fault that she slipped.

Santa said his Elf was not at fault and the first Court to hear the case believed Santa.

Mrs D went to the Court of Appeal.

It was a very dark and  cramped area and there were 8 people in a small space with 2 Christmas trees and presents lying on the floor.

Santa’s Elf had asked Mrs D to step to one side whilst photographs were being taken  and it was not for Mrs D to make sure the floor was free from tripping and slipping hazards as it was dark and very difficult to see and she was being guided to the area by the Elf.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of Mrs D stating that an icicle  on the floor was the cause of her accident, and she was asked by the Elf to stand in the area she slipped.

The icicle shouldn’t have been there and the Elf should have made sure the floor was safe and free from debris and defects.

The Appeal Court felt that the Lower Court had taken a very benevolent view of Santa and his Elf’s failures and awarded Mrs D compensation for her fall.

Thankfully  Santa was fully insured and therefore was freed from the Court to continue with his work.

Even though it was Santa’s Grotto once you are a lawful visitor to premises, that person has to take reasonable care for your safety and in this case the Court felt  Santa and his Elf had let Mrs D down.

If you ever have a slip or trip accident please email me for advice or call me on 01623448304

We’re almost at the longest night, and it is the season perhaps when alcohol and cars start  mixing together with disastrous consequences.

Add to that the fact that more people might be walking to and from parties and pubs late at night and you have a  dangerous cocktail.

So a recent case was an early reminder of what can happen when things go badly wrong.

A pedestrian claimed compensation  for personal injury.

He had been knocked down by a speeding motorist who was under the influence of alcohol in the early hours of the morning.

The  motorist had previously pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving.

The problem was that driver was blaming the  pedestrian for the accident  as well.

The court heard the pedestrian had failed to  use a pedestrian crossing about 10 metres  from where he crossed the road and failed to note  the  speeding vehicle and that the traffic lights for the driver  were on green, and  not focusing to his right when crossing.

Although the Court thought that the pedestrian was partly at fault, the Court felt the  driver should bear 90% of  fault for the accident as his failings were  substantially worse than the pedestrian, having been drunk in charge of a speeding vehicle.

It’s a fight at times to get the right amount of compensation  and the  correct result and if you need assistance with any accident  please don’t hesitate to email me or call Russell Jones on 01623 448304