Published in Truckstop News January 2011.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider more “READERS’ SUCCESSFUL ACCIDENT CLAIMS”, on this occasion dealing with falling objects.  

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 accidents where my clients were injured by a falling object, over which they had very little control.  As with previous articles, the common trend remains the effect on each individual’s life, and 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.

Published in Truckstop News December 2010.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider “WHETHER CLAIMS CAN BE MADE AGAINST COMPANIES IN LIQUIDATION OR NO LONGER TRADING”

There are likely to be a considerable number of valid personal injury compensation claims that have not been pursued, simply because the person either injured in an accident at work or suffering from an Industrial Disease believes that the insolvency or liquidation of the company at fault will prevent them from making a claim.  This is not the case.

Although in some situations it may take a considerable amount of time to piece together the history of a company and trace the relevant insurance cover, in many instances the time required to bring the claim to a successful conclusion is little different from that taken when the defendant company is a solvent business.  The same applies no matter whether the potential defendant is a limited company, a PLC, a sole trader or a partnership that has ceased trading.  The important factor is whether the insurance company that provided the relevant cover to that business can be identified.  If there was a valid insurance policy in force at the time the accident occurred, or the Industrial Disease was suffered, then generally speaking a claim for compensation will be possible.

The number of people killed in work related accidents has fallen to the lowest on record.  An official report published in October 2010 by the Health and Safety Executive indicated that between April 2009 and March 2010 there were 152 fatalities, down from 179 the previous year.  This corresponds to a rate of 0.5 deaths per 100,000 employees.

There were 26,061 major injuries, such as amputations and significant burns, to workers compared with 27,894 in 2008/09.  There were 95,369 injuries severe enough to keep employees away from work for three or more days, down from 105,261 in the previous year.

An estimated 1.3 million people said they were suffering from an illness caused or made worse by the nature of their work, which was an increase from 1.2 million in 2008/09.

Published in Truckstop News November 2010.

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

Continuing his review of successfully completed accident injury claims, Steven Hinchliffe looks at 2 accidents involving trailers that were experienced by readers of Truckstop News, which ultimately lead to each man being awarded personal injury compensation.

All of the accident victims mentioned in this series of articles are 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 some of the names referred to may be familiar to you.

A Lincolnshire global frozen vegetable merchant has recently received a £10,000 Court fine after an employee had his finger amputated following an accident at work.

The employee was attempting to make straight some boxes on an automatic palletising device at the Pinguin Food plant in Boston, Lincolnshire.  The mechanism he was working with had a Perspex guard but this allowed the employee access to the guarded enclosure while the machine was running.  In fact, when the accident occurred the employee was standing behind the guard but was still able to get his fingers caught between a pallet and the conveying platform.

The employee lost his middle finger from the tip to the first knuckle and was away from work for six months.

Published in Truckstop News October 2010.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider “WHY DEFECTIVE WORK EQUIPMENT ACCIDENT CLAIMS ARE USUALLY SUCCESSFUL”

THE GENERAL LAW

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) came into force on 5 December 1998, and both employers and employees should ensure they are fully aware of the duties and responsibilities imposed on them.

The Regulations aim to prevent risks to workers’ health and safety that might arise from equipment they come into contact with during the course of their work.  The requirements imposed on employers include ensuring that such equipment is safe for the use intended; that regular maintenance and repairs are undertaken to keep it in a safe working condition; that it is only used by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training; and that there are suitable safety measures such as markings, warnings or protective guards, and if appropriate the provision of special clothing.

Published in Truckstop News September 2010.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider “READERS’ SUCCESSFUL ‘REAR END SHUNT’ ROAD 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.

Published in Truckstop News August 2010.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors will consider “HOW COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENT RELATED INJURIES IS CALCULATED”

In this article I set out the basic procedures for working out how much money an injured person should receive to compensate them for the injuries they have suffered in an accident caused by the negligence of another person or company.  Awards of compensation made by the Courts in England and Wales are some of the lowest in Western Europe; therefore it is essential that every avenue is explored to ensure that the injured person is as fully compensated as the law permits.

Sometimes the injured person is found to be partly responsible for the accident, and in that case the amount of compensation they receive is reduced by a certain percentage to reflect their share of the blame.  For example, in a head on car accident both drivers may be held equally responsible and therefore once the full value of the injuries and the full extent of the injured person’s financial losses are established, only 50% of this would be due.  Also, if someone involved in a car accident was not wearing their seatbelt and this resulted in their injuries being more severe than would otherwise have been the case, they would lose between 15% and 25% of the full compensation, depending upon the individual circumstances.

According to the Health and Safety Executive the number of people killed at work fell to a record low between 1^st April 2009 and 31^st March 2010.  In this period 151 workers were killed which is a considerable improvement compared with the average number of deaths for the previous five years of 220 per year.

In part it is possible that the figures could be due to a decrease in commercial activity in some sectors because of the recession.  However, some improvement may well be down to the advancement of good practice in the workplace.

Car component manufacturer Dura Automotive Body and Glass Systems UK has been fined £30,000 following a prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive as a result of a mechanised robot striking worker Michael Brewer.  Mr Brewer suffered personal injury to his voice box and near paralysis along the side of his body.

The cause of this work accident was that it had become common practice during maintenance work to watch the operating sequence of the robotised machine from inside the guarded area rather than from outside it.  The risk assessment by the company had failed to consider the risks to the safety of workers posed by the industrial robot operating within the guarded area.