Archive for May, 2010

In May 2009 in the in the work related personal injury case of Smith v. Northamptonshire County Council, the House of Lords decided that an access ramp which was outside a disabled wheelchair users home did not amount to “work equipment” within the meaning of the Provision and Use of Equipment Regulations 1998.

Mrs Jean Smith was working for the Council as a driver and carer. On 1 December 2004 she visited the home of wheelchair bound Mrs Gina Cotter in order to take her to a day centre.  It was necessary for Mrs Smith to take Mrs Cotter from the property down a wooden ramp situated outside the patio doors.  When doing this the edge of the ramp gave way causing her to stumble and suffer personal injury.  The Council denied liability.

In the recent personal injury compensation case of Osei-Antwi v. South East London & Kent Bus Co Ltd decided by the Court of Appeal in January 2010, the Court reversed an earlier decision by a judge who decided that a pedestrian was guilty of contributory negligence by standing lawfully on a pavement when she was hit by a bus which had unlawfully mounted the same pavement.

The rear of a bus, while turning a corner, mounted the pavement and hit the female pedestrian.  The judge in the lower Court found that notwithstanding the woman was standing on a designated pavement area she was very close to the road and had not kept a proper look out for the bus.

In February 2010 in the personal injury case of Richardson v Butcher the Court held that the defendant driver had been negligent in hitting an 8 year old child running out from the pavement into the road causing injury, even though in her defence it was found reasonable that she had been concentrating on the vehicle immediately in front of her which was making a turn.

The judge, Burnett J, held that the injured 8 year old child had been in the road for at least 2 seconds and was therefore “there to be seen”. The defendant not seeing the child amounted to a failure to keep a proper look out and she was therefore negligent as her diving had fallen below the standard of care required of a road user.

Published in Truckstop News June 2010.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider more “READERS’ SUCCESSFUL TRIPPING ACCIDENT CLAIMS“

Continuing his review of successfully completed accident injury claims, Steven Hinchliffe looks at more situations experienced by readers of Truckstop News that resulted in an award of personal injury compensation.

All of the accident victims mentioned in these articles are actual clients of my firm, Hinchliffes Solicitors.  They have kindly given their permission for the disclosure of their details, and in particular of their real life experiences of incidents resulting in personal injury claims, and the steps taken to make a successful accident compensation claim.  All of these clients contacted my firm after seeing our details in Truckstop News – and readers may recognise some of the names referred to.

In this article I highlight 2 cases where drivers were injured because of dangerous premises.  As with previous articles, the common trend remains the effect on each individual’s life.  Both men had similar accidents, but sustained quite different degrees of injury and financial loss.  Although using the process of law to make personal injury claims as a means of redress cannot truly compensate for the trauma and inconvenience suffered, it can assist in requiring the guilty party to provide medical treatment and rehabilitation, in addition to financial relief by way of awards of compensation.  As previously indicated, the basic aim of an accident claim is to try and return the injured party to the position that he or she would otherwise have been in had the accident not happened.

In February 2010, in the personal injury compensation claim case of Stanton v Collinson, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial trial judge’s decision that a 16 year old male front seat car passenger who had suffered serious brain damage in a road accident had not been contributory negligent, even though he had carried another passenger on his knees and neither had been wearing seat belts.  The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was in the best situation to consider the evidence and decide whether the wearing of a seat belt would have reduced the injuries sufficiently to justify a reduction in compensation for contributory negligence.