Archive for the 'Defective products' Category

Published in CV Driver April 2011.

This is the fourth in a series of articles written by solicitor Steven Hinchliffe, who is the owner and Principal of the specialist Personal Injury firm HINCHLIFFES SOLICITORS.

In these articles he will consider various issues relating to the accidents commonly suffered by professional drivers and the sometimes devastating injuries they sustain.  The firm has many years of experience in handling accident claims on behalf of injured victims – not only recovering millions of pounds in compensation, but also securing medical and other rehabilitation treatment to aid their recovery and return to normal life. 

This article outlines how different companies view accident claims, and the tactics used by some to encourage injured victims to deal direct with them.

Published in Truckstop News April 2011.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider how “YOUR ACCESS TO JUSTICE IS IN JEOPARDY”  

I was recently involved in a financial transaction and received very poor service from a high street bank.  As a result I incurred several thousand pounds of expenditure I had not bargained for.  I made a formal complaint and claimed my losses, but the bank refused to deal with the matter.  I therefore involved the Financial Services Ombudsman and although I do not know what the outcome will be, there is now an independent party considering the merits of my complaint, and if it is upheld they will require the bank to compensate me.

How is this relevant to someone wanting to make a claim for personal injury compensation?  Let me explain.  If you are injured in an accident and the party responsible refuses to pay compensation, you can put your case before a Judge at a trial (ie an independent party).  If they find in your favour they can assess the amount you should receive for your injuries and financial losses, and require your opponent to pay this, together with your legal costs.

Published in Truckstop News July 2010.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider “THE IMPORTANCE OF STRONG MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN SUCCESSFUL PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS”

What is the role of medical evidence in personal injury claims and why is it so important?  To make a successful claim for personal injury compensation, you need to prove three things.  Firstly, that someone else had a legal responsibility for your safety and welfare; secondly that they failed in their responsibilities towards you; and finally that you suffered an injury as a direct result.  No matter how serious your injuries are, you will only be able to recover accident compensation if the first and second criteria are satisfied.

It is normally necessary for an injured person wishing to claim personal injury compensation to start Court proceedings in support of their claim within three years of the date of their accident.  If they do not do so the claim will usually be lost, as it will have become statute barred because of the provisions of the Limitation Acts.

However, the Court of Appeal recently decided that when Judges are exercising their discretion whether or not to waive the three year time limit, they should not automatically regard the person or company responsible for causing the accident to be prejudiced by removing their ability to use the passage of time as a defence.

Mrs Margaretta Lewis of Worthing has received £20,000 in personal injury compensation following an accident claim when a badly installed heater fell and left her trapped beneath it for more than 24 hours. 

The 87 year old widow suffered such severe burns that she had to spend 6 weeks in hospital.  She also suffered a fractured hip and broken ankle. 

The injuries occurred when Mrs Lewis went to investigate a loud noise coming from a storage heater that a workman had fitted in her home 3 months earlier.  As she reached the heater it suddenly fell from its brackets, knocking her unconscious and pinning her to the floor.

A 45 year old woman from Merseyside has been awarded £3,250 personal injury compensation following injuries to her back, hip and knee caused during an accident when she entered a lift.

She did not realise the floor of the lift was several inches lower than it should have been, and the misaligned entrance caused her to slip and severely jar her back.  This resulted in her suffering with pain in her leg and back for several months.

Since April 2008 we have been reporting on the progress of the 1000 plus personal injury compensation claims for various skin conditions resulting from defective leather furniture.  Argos, who is one of the Defendants in the litigation, has now accepted that these problems were caused by anti fungicide sachets that were placed within the items of furniture.

More than 1000 people are making defective product injury claims after suffering painful skin reactions caused by Pia or Bari leather furniture supplied by a number of retailers.  With this new development it is hoped that it may now be possible for settlement proposals for their claims for compensation to be put forward.

On 13^th July 2008 Sophie King was awarded £7,200 personal injury compensation at the Manchester County Court when the shoe firm Dolcis admitted liability for injuries to her leg, caused when her stiletto snapped while on a night out.  The accident resulted in surgery to her injured leg.

The accident happened during a night out with friends in Manchester, and which was the first time she had worn the two and a half inch heeled shoes.  The injury to her leg required an operation and she was then in plaster for a while, which made it impossible for her to play sport.  She also had a holiday job as a waitress, which she had to give up.

A woman from Leeds whose sofa was manufactured in the UK and distributed by Homebase claims that it was defective, resulting in her infant son suffering injury.

Her claim is based on her son suffering severe burns approximately 1 hour after being laid on the leather sofa.  He had to remain bandaged for 3 months with a weeping rash, and his mother was unable to return to work at the end of her maternity leave, because of the amount of care he required.

Homebase have apologised for the distress caused and offered a refund, but have indicated that they have not received any other complaints concerning this particular type of sofa.

Currently, there are 1000s of people pursuing injury compensation claims in respect of defective sofas that were manufactured in China and sold under the names “Pia” and “Bari”, which caused burns and skin irritations.  Investigations in these cases suggest that any burns may have been caused by fungicide sachets that were inside the sofas and which were to protect against mould during transit and storage.

A Judge has given people who were injured by defective Pia and Bari sofas the go ahead for a group action, the effect of which is to progress the injury compensation claims together, but this does not stop people making new claims where they have been injured but have not yet done anything about it.

Mr Justice Treacy granted the Order against the companies which supplied the defective sofas, namely Argos; Land of Leather and Walmsley Furnishing.

More than 1000 people have made a personal injury claim after the Pia and Bari sofas manufactured in China appeared to cause a range of symptoms including allergies, rashes and burns.  The Pia and Bari ranges were withdrawn by Argos in October 2007 offering a refund or replacement.