1. Don’t Panic!

I know – this is a lot easier said than done! And of course is rather circumstantial if you have been involved in a big car accident… But try not to panic and try to remain calm. It’s likely you are in shock from the impact, and may be feeling a little dazed and unsure what to do. This is probably the hardest part – but if you can keep your head together, then the next steps might be a little easier.

2. Make a Mental Note of the Vehicle that Hit You

Before stepping out of the vehicle to speak with the driver at fault, make a note of the vehicle that hit you (make, model and colour), and make sure to write down the registration number! This may be particularly useful if the driver decides to drive off! (Although I am sure this isn’t too common occurrence). It’s always handy to have a notebook and a pen in your vehicle for this kind of situation – the power of the pen and paper may just end up being very useful!

3. Remain Calm and Speak to the Driver at Fault

This also may be a little tricky – especially if the driver at fault is not so cooperative. The priority is to exchange details; make sure you take a full name and address and a contact telephone number, and if you were unable to note down the vehicle information advised in step 2, then make sure to note this down. Emphasise on exchanging insurance information – although if you are unable to do so, then the contact details and vehicle details will suffice.

4. Witnesses? Speak to them!!!

If there are any friendly bystanders or other road users who have been kind enough to stop off and give you a hand, make sure you speak with them and exchange some details with them. Names, addresses and contact telephone numbers are the useful ones again here – and you never know, their information may prove useful at a later date.

5. Have a Safe Journey Home…

Depending of course if you vehicle is safe to drive! If you are unsure, then it may be wise to call any breakdown assistance you have or a local garage, or perhaps call a family member or friend to come and meet you. If you do not feel confident to drive (perhaps if you are still suffering from shock), then it would certainly be wise to speak to a family member or friend and get them to come out and meet you as soon as they can. Make sure of course your vehicle is in a safe location off the road.

So what about the next few days? You may have already started to feel a bit of pain from the accident – which is commonly whiplash sustained from the impact. You may even feel absolutely fine for a few days (albeit perhaps a little shocked still), and then you start to feel some pain in your neck, back and shoulders. Again, more likely whiplash – which sometimes the symptoms don’t show until a few days after an accident. So what should you do now?

Well here is where we can really help! Whiplash, or any injury sustained from a road traffic accident, is not a nice thing to have – and can hinder your work activities and general day to day activates. If the accident wasn’t your fault and you are suffering because of it, then you are eligible to claim for the compensation you are legally entitled to recover.

The best advice we can offer you is to speak with an independent expert personal injury solicitor. You may have already consulted your insurers with regards to arranging for vehicle damages – but one piece of advice to certainly head is to never let insurers deal with any claim for personal injury! They are likely to sell your case on to a third party solicitor – often through something called legal expense insurance – of which the problem here is that you do not get to choose who represents you, and you may not always get the best firm (it’s more than likely you will get the highest bidding one!). And a firm that’s already paid up to £800 (yes, £800!!!) to buy your case has less resources and time to spend on making the best out of your claim!

Speak to a specialist personal injury lawyer for free, no obligation advice on claiming!

According to sources from the Mail, famous British adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes has been allegedly involved in a multi-car head on collision after falling asleep at the wheel of his Jaguar (source)

The incident has left one driver with serious injuries, and a five year old boy was taken to casualty with minor injuries. Just hours before the accident, Sir Ranulph had completed a 42 mile overnight marathon across the Peak District – the plausible cause as to how he ended up snoozing behind the wheel! Another adult involved in the accident was described as “walking wounded”

So far police have not cautioned or detained Sir Ranulph in light of no intentional wrong-doing being evident. He will of course be formally questioned, and it is important to note that falling asleep at the wheel of a car is classed as dangerous driving, and carries penalties from a fine to two years imprisonment.

By no means of course is falling asleep at the wheel an excuse. An accident of this nature I am sure was not intentional. But Sir Ranulph it appears so far has been negligent in his duty of care to other road users. If he had have not driven after such a tiring event the previous day, the accident may not have occurred! And if negligence is proved, he is liable for any damages that may be claimed against him.

Road traffic accidents are not uncommon – and although in the majority of cases there is no intention by the driver at fault, there is the right to claim compensation from their insurance if they have been negligent. It’s what it’s there for! And I am sure many would agree that being injured in an accident is not a nice thing to happen – so it’s only fair you are compensated if the accident was not your fault!

If you are involved in an accident caused by another driver’s negligence, you are more than likely eligible to claim for the compensation you are legally entitled to! Speak to an independent expert personal injury solicitor for advice on what claiming is all about!

According to a recent report from the BBC, a Swedish pilot was arrested by Dutch police just moments before he was to take off in a jet from Amsterdam to Turkey carrying 101 people – without a license! (source)

According to Turkey’c Corendon Airlines, the unnamed 41 year old mad has been flying for the airline for two years, and were quoted to have said the perjurious pilot “expertly misled the company with his false papers”. The man in question once had a license to fly small planes, however this was overdue, and doesn’t really  stand as much comfort for anyone to be honest either! According to the report, the man was “relieved his long deception was uncovered and tore off his pilot’s stripes in the cockpit.” He is now rightly in police custody  awaiting trial.

Scary thought really – that a man had been allowed to fly such a plane unqualified, jeopardising not only the lives of those on board, but anyone on the flight route should a crash have occurred! Safety regulations for airlines should be a massive priority! Its concerning that this incident occurred, and the airline would have been responsible for any accidents that may have occurred.

But the recent stories of air traffic gone mad don’t end there – according to a separate report from the BBC, officials in the US are investigating how a child was allowed to direct air traffic at JFK Airport last month!

Yes, that’s right – from a phoney pilot to a child directing air traffic!  According to the report, the boy was caught on audiotape directing several pilots for take off at one of the countries busiest international airports. The boy was apparently with his father, a certified air traffic controller.

The report has detailed some of the exchanges in the recording:

Boy “JetBlue 171 contact departure.”

Responding pilot: “Over to departure JetBlue 171, awesome job.”

In a second recording:

Boy: “MS 4-0-3, contact departure. Adios, amigo.”

Responding pilot “Adios, amigo.”

The incident took place on 17^th February when New York school students were on a weeks break. An adult is also alleged to have been heard saying – “That’s what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school.”

Those involved are no longer directing air traffic whilst the investigation commences. In a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration, it was stated “pending the outcome of our investigation, the employees involved in this incident are not controlling air traffic. This behaviour is not acceptable and does not demonstrate the kind of professionalism expected from all FAA employees.”

Another scary story; not just because of the gravity of these two incidents, in that unqualified individuals were permitted to take the lives of hundreds of people in to their hands, but what does it say about safety and security for the industry in the current climate where terrorism is a still significant issue! I’m certainly glad I wasn’t on any of the flights involved.

Airlines and airports put the lives of hundreds of individuals in to his hands on a daily basis – so we expect them to comply with stringent regulations. Failing in this leaves them liable for any accidents – and it’s certainly a miracle that no accidents occurred!

So why is this the case? Well according to the report, people are too worried about returning a faulty product through nerves, embarrassment, or fear of intimidation! The Poll from the Department for Business revealed that nearly half of those questioned had at least one faulty product at home. Low value items reportedly tend to be kept, and the highest complained about item were second-hand cars.

Personally, I have no qualms about returning a faulty product – but remarkably the results of the 3000 people spread indicated that men are losing more money than women in failing to return faulty goods! Costs for men was found to be at £89 per year on average, compared to £71 a year for women. Men apparently felt more intimidated, whilst women felt more embarrassed.

But exactly what are our rights? What are we entitled to when it comes to faulty goods we buy? Here’s a list from the BBC article from the Current UK Consumer Rules:

When a shopper buys an item it should be as described in the shop or website and of satisfactory quality

• If it is faulty, or wrongly described, the consumer has the right to a refund, replacement or repair
• However, the complaint should be made “within a reasonable time”. This generally means getting a refund if it is returned within a month
• For the first six months, the retailer must prove the product was satisfactory when bought if they turn down a replacement or repair
• For the next six months, the consumer must prove there was something wrong on purchase to get a replacement or repair

So what are the rights when a person is injured in some way from a faulty product? Well you have the right to claim for compensation if you are injured due to a faulty product, and we as specialist independent personal injury lawyers will give you the best advice on claiming, and the highest standard representation!

Just give us a call and find out where you stand today!

According to one BBC report, a man from a notorious Glasgow crime family has admitted killing a man in an act of road rage terrible road rage (source).

Twenty-eight year old Paul Lyons (28) rammed Mark Fleeman’s van on the M74 in an act of drink and drugs fuelled road rage, at a time when Lyons was serving a driving ban! Tragically, Mr Freeman suffered fatal injuries after his vehicle was overturned and taken off the road during the incident, just seconds after a desperate 999 call was made to police with the operator allegedly hearing the impact.

Reportedly he was originally charged with murder, however he has pleaded guilty to culpable homicide and attempting to defeat the ends of justice, after he fled to Spain and was picked up by Spanish Police, and accordingly extradited back to the UK. He has also admitted to injuring the passenger, 17 year old Lee Allsup, to “permanent impairment” and to dangerous driving.

Speaking after the hearing at the High Court in Glasgow, district procurator fiscal for Hamilton Jennifer Harrower said: “Paul Lyons used his van as a weapon, it may not have been a knife or a gun but nevertheless it had the same lethal consequences culminating in the death of an innocent man.”

According to the report, Lyons repeatedly attempted to purposefully collide with Mr Freeman’s van on the road at speeds of more than 70mph. People have apparently been “naturally outraged” at the incident and the circumstances of this tragic road incident. Certainly a terrible and tragic instance of road rage at its worse.

All drivers know their duty of care to other road users, and of course failing in this duty of care through negligence leaves the driver liable for and damages and suffering. This of course is an incident of purposeful violence as oppose to negligence, and has led to the tragic death of one man and the second with serious life impairing injuries.

The report quotes that most stadiums consider having this type of equipment to be good practice (Referring to Hull’s performance again, I would like to think KC Stadium has got a few of these!)  – However, the conclusions from a recent study indicate that more than a quarter of a 187 grounds analysed did not have defibrillators on site; and many didn’t even have any emergency planning in place.

The Swedish study from a team of doctors have stressed that more needs to be done due to the difficulties of getting fans to hospital from the ground. Researches have called for mandatory rules to be in place to cover the issue. Reportedly, governments have already been acting on the issue; with many including the UK doing more to increase the availability of life-saving equipment in public spaces.

Defibrillators of course are handy to have – they work to restore the heartbeat by delivering a controlled electric shock through the chest, and on to the heart.

So aside form the obvious, medically speaking, what exactly do I mean in linking heart attacks to football?

Well Professor Mats Borjesson, the official medic for Swedish club GAIS and a member of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, has stated “It is known that viewing and being emotionally engaged in a soccer game increases the likelihood of people suffering a heart attack so we think this should be a formal requirement.” I think this speaks for itself really! He went on to say that it is important to have the right procedures in place for such an event.

The stadiums involved have not been named – however they are reportedly in the top divisions. To bring the seriousness of this to light, the report states that last season there were 77 heart attacks at football games – one for every 589,000 spectators at these stadiums.

Perhaps lucky for us Brits, the spread of 37 English grounds involved in the study were statistically among the top performers.

Although this particular issue can not be 100% related to health and safety regulations, as with any other establishment, the ground owners of course have a duty to ensure that everything is done to prevent any person coming to harm, or suffering further due to the absence of essential life saving equipment.

But as the season continues, here’s to hoping Goodison Park has the right equipment this Sunday for Hull’s away game!

www.channel4.com/scams-claims-and-compensation-games

And some of the contents of the program were certainly true! Unfortunately we personal injury lawyers do on occasion get a bad rep for the work we do. But it doesn’t half make us feel good when we get a top result for a victim of an accident that wasn’t their fault!

But to discuss some of the issues in the program:

Council Trippers

It’s true, they’re difficult to fight for. The councilsthese days do have a solid defence under Section 58 of the Highways Act. The underlying point of the act of course is to ensure that councils do regularly inspect the highways, and repair any potentially hazardous defects they find. A cracked curb or a wobbly pavement may seem like such a minor thing; but when a person falls because of it, and does themselves a bad injury, it’s understandable to want to be compensated for the pain and suffering endured. I certainly wouldn’t want to lose the use of my arm for 6 weeks from a fracture – I mean, who would write my blogs!!!???

But unfortunately it does stand as their primary defence for claims – even when the victim has been seriously injured due to a defect. An act in place as a preventative measure appears to have been tightly tuned in to a defect dodging defence. It’s further unfortunate when the victim is elderly. We do see a lot of elderly people injured due to highways defects, and sadly they fall much harder than the younger generations.

And it’s not unheard of for council inspections to be inaccurate: There have been past cases where liability has been disputed based on inspection records – but us specialist personal injury solicitors don’t just take no for an answer! We tirelessly explore every avenue of evidence for our clients, simply because we want to do right by them. And it’s not unheard for local residents to come forward and advise a defect has been existent for some time; despite what the inspection records may say…

Of course, everyone has their opinions on the subject. And yes, we can genuinely understand why people dislike taxpayers’ funds being spent on defending claims. But if the councils kept to their duties like they should do, then perhaps there wouldn’t be victims out there needing representation for being injured in an accident. And we do have a lot of claimants telling us that they simply can’t get the results and action necessary by going it alone with the counsels’ representatives. The program itself mentioned of peoples grievances when “no one answers your telephone calls.”

The Payouts

There is only one way to value a claim – with good, independent medical evidence, the JSB Guidelines combined with previous case law, and of course a specialist independent personal injury solicitor! A good point raised in the program was that if insurers actually paid out to victims what they should be entitled to, then victims of accidents wouldn’t require representation. Unfortunately, insurers generally only have one singular aim – to save as much money as they can! It’s a harsh reality, and it’s what we are here to prevent – to level the playing field.

It’s either the big insurers vs. the victims, or the big insurers vs. the solicitors – and we have the knowledge and expertise to take them on! So we really are fighting for the individual!

If you saw the program, you will have seen the man awarded £6000 for his razor injury. I have heard people disagree with this – but as you will have seen, the claimant’s lawyers fought tooth and nail to get the evidence they required that prove the razor was defective. And let’s face it, who wants to be left with a scar in such a prominent and noticeable place?

So, feel free to let us know what you thought of the program! We’d love to hear from people out there who saw it – what are your thoughts and opinions on the subjects involved?

And remember, if you have been injured in any accident, whether it is due to a defective highway, or to quote the new Talk Talk advert I heard on Spotify recently: “Have you fallen through the fabric of time?” (Unfortunately we can’t represent you on that one!), then please get in touch for some free, no obligation legal advice on claiming from an independent specialist personal injury law firm!

According to sources form the BBC (source), a snapshot survey of 16 schools has indicated that some British schools continue to fail in meeting the legal requirements to protect children from the dangers of asbestos. The report of 16 schools showed that none of them complied with safety standards in place for managing the harmful substance – which is a concerning fact!

Teaching Unions have since called for a full audit to be carried out on the dangers of the potentially cancer-causing silicate, since government policy in place is for the management of the substance, not its removal. Reportedly however, many schools lack the resources to effectively manage asbestos, leaving them open to serious potential dangers, according to Atac (Asbestos Training and Consultancy Association). Association of Teachers and Lecturers general secretary Dr Mary Bousted has called for an independent body to be set up, to monitor and advise on the management and removal of the substance.

According to the report, Atac has advised that in more than half of schools visited, asbestos was damaged – and it is when asbestos is damaged or disturbed that the potentially serious hazards occur from the particles that can be released. Although the report is small, it is the start of a much larger study which if we take the results so far in to account, could lead to disturbing conclusions.

Sources form the BBC state that it is thought around 75% of British schools contain asbestos, and 178 teachers have so far known to have died from asbestos related diseases.

Atac chairman John O’Sullivan has said that “Numerous incidents have taken place where asbestos fibres have been released, the schools contaminated and teachers, support staff and pupils have been exposed.  The increasing numbers of mesothelioma deaths amongst teachers and support staff is testament that the policy of management has failed.”

Schools Minister Iain Wright stated “The health and welfare of pupils and staff is absolutely paramount. By law, tough, robust processes must be in place in schools to carefully monitor asbestos. All local authorities and school employers must fully comply - no ifs or buts.” He added “The HSE will not hesitate to take action in areas which are not coming up to scratch.”

The local authorities and schools must comply with stringent legislation to prevent the dangers of asbestos affecting anyone at all. In failing to meet the requirement in place, they are labile for any person’s suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos.

For advice and help on asbestos related diseases, we strongly suggest that you speak to an expert independent personal injury solicitor and get the right advice and the proper representation for pursuing a claim.

According to the BBC, the General Medical Council (or GMC) had been considering whether to strike Riza Murat Gurun off the medical register. However, it said that a combination of factors led to the mistake. It heard that pre-operative scans had wrongly identified the tumour in the right kidney.

The GMC decided that the surgeon’s fitness to practice was not impaired. It said that it was not necessary to issue the surgeon with a formal warning.

Patient John Heron went in to Ayr Hospital in March 2006 to have a cancerous tumour removed from his kidney.

The GMC hearing in London was told that a pre-operative scan wrongly suggested the tumour was in his right kidney and surgeon Mr Gurun went ahead with the surgery even though other scans were not available.

It was only when the pathology lab checked the organ which had been removed that they discovered it was healthy.

The GMC’s Fitness to Practice Panel heard that a number of different factors led to the mistake including the fact that the patient’s symptoms were on the right side, the CT abdomen report wrongly indicated the tumour was in the right kidney, and a GP referral letter referred to a “right-sided lesion”.

Although Mr Gurun was found guilty of misconduct the panel found that his ability to practice was not impaired. However the panel noted that the surgeon had attempted to act to get the best care for his patient following the error and held the patient’s care as his primary concern.

It does not seem from the evidence provided that the mistake by Mr Gurun was solely attributable to him and indeed it appears that it was a combination of other errors which meant that the surgeon ended up removing the wrong kidney. However, there could undoubtedly be a claim for personal injury brought against a combination of Mr Gurun, Ayr hospital and even Mr Heron’s GP as it seems clear that all three fell below the standard of care that Mr Heron might have expected from them.

However, it did state that noise complaints have gone down regarding advertisements over the last two years since the rules were tightened.

ITV3 stated that as the series was made in the 1980s it had many silent pauses so the commercial seemed louder. They also stated that the loudness of the advertisements were “appropriate and consistent in the context of the overall loudness of the channel”.

However the ASA upheld the complaint and stated that the loudness of the advertisements were “not well matched to the overall sound levels of the programme.”

Overly loud advertisements have been a consistent source of irritation to viewers over the years and prompted the Broadcast Committee of Advertising practice to publish a new rule on sound levels in 2008 which stated that “advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident.”

“The maximum subjective loudness of advertisements must be consistent and in line with the maximum loudness of programmes.”

Excessive noise can cause injury to people. The louder the noise and the longer people are exposed to it will increase the chances of them suffering damage to their hearing. Short bursts of sound are less likely to cause such an injury but this does not mean there are not instances of this occurring. One of the more obvious places where you might be exposed to excessive noise on a consistent basis is if you work in an excessively noisy environment. Employers have to comply with regulations to ensure the health and safety of their workers in line with the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. This might mean reducing their employees’ exposure to the noise through moving them away from that environment or by providing them with safety equipment.