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.

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.

In a personal injury compensation case decided on 19^th May 2010, Mr Swain recovered compensation in respect of his slip and fall due to mud on a construction site footway against both the main construction site contractor and the sub contractor who had day to day responsibility for maintaining the site.

The trial judge held that the subcontractor with responsibility for groundwork on the building site was liable for the personal injuries suffered by Mr Swain due to the failure to implement an effective system to ensure that a footway was kept clear of mud.

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.