Former prisoners are to receive compensation in excess of £120,000 following claims made against the Prison Service in which they alleged they had suffered assaults and racial discrimination by prison officers.

Fifteen former inmates of Leeds Prison commenced Court proceedings in support of their claims, indicating the abuse and discrimination had taken place between 2003 and 2005, and involved beatings and failure to protect them from attacks by other prisoners.  Thirteen of the claimants also alleged discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race and religion.

At the commencement of the Court hearing, the Prison Service took the decision to settle the claims.

A recent study indicates that unless their long term health is affected, people are reluctant to pursue legitimate claims for personal injury compensation for fear of being labelled “money grabbers”.

Of the people taking part in the survey, 81% felt that the country is in the grip of a US style claims culture, with 53% suggesting that claimants are purely financially motivated.  However, those same people said they would claim injury compensation following an accident if their future health and earning capacity was likely to be affected.  It seems that the more serious the consequences of an accident, the less reluctance there is to make a personal injury claim.

It also appears that those who have not been injured in an accident are more critical of people who pursue claims.  They may overlook that to a claimant earning the minimum wage even modest compensation of say £2,000 can dramatically improve their financial situation, whereas to someone with an annual salary of say £30,000 such a claim may not be worth the bother.

In excess of 6,000 people in the UK are admitted to hospital each year suffering allergic reactions, many of which are as a result of using cosmetics and hair dyes.

Baroness Finlay has recently expressed concern at the general lack of medical expertise in tackling allergies, and she recommended that the Government take remedial action.  However, leading national charity Allergy UK has pointed out that the same issues were highlighted in 2004, but nothing was done about them.

Since the 1930s people who have experienced allergic reactions to hair dyes have been making personal injury compensation claims.  The basis of such claims is often the negligence of the hairdresser in failing to follow the instructions for using the particular product.  This results in injury to their client’s hair and scalp, which can sometimes be severe and lead to extreme trauma.

Darren Werth, the Chairman of the Claims Standards Council (CSC), has congratulated the Ministry of Justice for regulating the claims management industry.

Mr Werth indicated that the Government had done a good job with the regulation process when he said “The Government has successfully removed the cowboys from the industry; that is good news for the legal sector, insurance sector, the Government, but above all the claimant”.

However, the Insurance Fraud Bureau might argue that this is simply not the case.  They are currently investigating dozens of claims management companies, and also 10 firms of solicitors, in connection with allegations of insurance fraud within the claims industry, including claims that involve personal injury compensation.

Ms Allison was employed by London Underground as a tube train driver and after using a newly designed traction brake control she developed tenosynovitis.  She had not received any specific training or instruction on the correct way to hold the new brake control and her employer therefore failed to minimise the risk of her suffering an injury.  As a result of this, London Underground was required to pay her personal injury compensation.

All employers are subject to regulations that impose a mandatory duty to provide adequate training.  Whether that training is adequate is assessed by what the employer ought to have known of the risks arising from the activities of its business, and not what the employer actually knew.

Two recent Court decisions indicate the firm position being taken to deter fraud in claims for personal injury compensation.

A scam to claim £100,000 from Plymouth Council was foiled when the fraudster received a 3 year prison sentence.  Gordon Thomson decided to break the leg of his then girlfriend, Elizabeth Hingston, with the intention that she make a personal injury claim against the Council alleging that the injury was caused by a collapsed wall.

In an unrelated investigation it was discovered that solicitor, Thomas McGoldrick, having succeeded in winning substantial injury compensation on behalf of a disabled client, then stole £1.25 million of that compensation to pay debts accrued by his extravagant lifestyle.  He received a 10 year prison sentence.

A recent report indicates that drivers currently have to negotiate in excess of 3 million holes in roads in the UK - made up of around 1 million potholes and a further 2 million holes caused by road works. 

Studies also suggest that the road signs highlighting these problems could actually make motoring even more hazardous and that road safety could be improved simply by reducing the number of road signs. 

One element of driving safely is the driver’s ability to react swiftly to dangers on the road.  Too much visual information could become a distraction and may actually impair reaction times.  The fewer distractions drivers face, the less likely they are to be involved in a road accident.

New technologies tested by Thatcham, the Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre, have raised hopes that road accident collisions resulting in a whiplash injury and consequent claims for personal injury compensation could be reduced by up to 50%.  The technologies involve laser and radar aided devices that could stop a car getting too close to the vehicle in front.

Statistics indicate that around 80% of the claims resulting from a car accident are in respect of low speed crashes and the new braking system is aimed at drivers who do not take sufficient care in slow moving traffic.  Many car manufacturers already use devices to help prevent high speed impacts.

It is alleged that if every car was equipped with such a device, around half of the annual road accident claims (currently 250,000) could be prevented.

To avert the possibility of a flood of claims for personal injury compensation, Canadian manufacturer Megabrands has recalled its MagnaMan and Magtastik toys.  This follows 19 reports of magnets coming loose from the action figures and harming children.  Worldwide approximately 2.4 million products have been recalled, including 110,000 MagnaMan and 170,000 Magtastik toys sold in the UK between January 2005 and December 2007.

In a similar move US toymaker Mattel recalled more than 18 million toys worldwide in August 2007.  In this case it was discovered that the paint used in the Chinese-made “Sarge” die-cast toys from the Pixar film Cars contained lead, rendering them potentially harmful.

Mattel has also recalled other toys - including Polly Pocket, Batman Magna, Doggie Daycare and One Piece play sets - which contained small magnets that might come loose, even though there have been no reports of an accident caused by these products.

To ensure the safety of staff and authorised visitors, a workplace floor must not be slippery.  A recent claim for personal injury compensation made by an employee of Bristol City Council has highlighted that in claims of this type the Court will bear in mind the use to which the floor was put, including temporary circumstances that might often arise.  In this case the Court considered the frequency of any intermittently hazardous conditions, the chances of someone having an accident at work and suffering injury, and the severity of that injury.

It was found that the floor where the Council’s employee worked was frequently contaminated by urine, and when wet became slippery.  The Court found that the likelihood of a slipping accident occurring that might result in an injury was reasonably foreseeable during such times.  The employee had been warned of the potential hazard, but nevertheless the Council was held to be in breach of established Health and Safety Regulations.  However, the employee was also considered to be partly at fault and as a result his injury compensation was reduced by one third.