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.

Pirelli Tyres has received a fine of £9,000 after admitting a breach of health and safety regulations when a forklift truck hit a workman at the company’s Carlisle plant, resulting in him suffering a broken leg.

Alan Miller, a contractor working on the site, was hit from behind by a pallet on the forks of a forklift truck as he walked through one of the departments at the plant.  The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the company for failing to manage the risks to pedestrians in the area where the accident happened, including failing to advise contractors of the safety measures required to make sure their safety.

Published in Truckstop News August 2010.

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

Continuing his review of successfully completed accident injury claims, Steven Hinchliffe looks at 2 defective work equipment situations experienced by readers of Truckstop News that ultimately lead to an award of 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.

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.

In the personal injury compensation case of Tomasz Krysztof Kmiecic v Nadia France Isaacs decided on 12th March 2010 a householder was found not liable under statutory regulations or in negligence when a casual worker fell and sustained injury at her property.

The claimant claimed damages for personal injury after falling from a ladder while trying to repair a leaky garage roof at the defendant’s home.  The defendant prohibited the claimant from gaining access to the roof by the window in her son’s bedroom as she did not want him to walk through the house on the white carpets.  Subsequently it was decided he should use a step ladder that was in the garage, but it was too short and whilst climbing the ladder, it slipped and the claimant fell sustaining injury.

A car mechanic, who injured two of his fingers while repairing a police car, recently won around £400,000 in personal injury compensation from the Metropolitan police.  Alexander Darg had claimed in the region of £1M in compensation after lacerating himself on a knife which was stuck down the driver’s seat of the police car he was working on.

Mr Darg was hurt in 2002 at Limehouse police station in London, where he was examining an airbag fault.  His wedding ring had to be cut away and he needed a number of stitches to close the wound.  A couple of years after the accident he had to give up work after being diagnosed with “complex regional pain syndrome”.

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.

Published in Truckstop News January 2010.

In this month’s issue Steven Hinchliffe of the specialist Personal Injury Compensation firm Hinchliffes Solicitors considers “THE PITFALLS OF DEALING DIRECT WITH INSURERS IN A ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM”

This article looks at the very beginning of road accident claims, how they are funded and the pitfalls to be aware of, particularly regarding insurance companies.  However, similar issues could apply to any type of accident compensation claim.

For many commercial entities involved in the personal injury claims business, an accident is purely a commodity to be bought and sold.  Despite the apparent lack of openness, almost all insurance companies will trade a claim for cash, potentially exploiting the injured party rather than protecting their interests.  Many insurers may soon be launching advertising campaigns to persuade the public to deal with them direct, but concealing their real motivation.

Like all injury compensation claims, a road accident claim can only be pursued by solicitors.  Adverts from claims companies on TV, on the Internet and in newspapers might suggest they will handle each case personally, but this is incorrect.  They actually sell the claim to solicitors on their appointed panel, often for a price of between £600 and £800.  The chosen solicitor will usually handle the matter on the basis that the injured person pays no legal costs, but some claims companies either charge a set amount or take a slice of the compensation once the case is successful, and which can amount to a substantial figure.  Before responding to this type of advertising, why not do some research and find a firm of specialist claims solicitors with a proven track record, and deal with them direct.