The situation in the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services was exactly the same as the situation above and all the individuals claiming had contracted Mesothelioma through working for several different employers over a period of years.

From the start each of the employers admitted they had patently failed in their duty to protect their employees from the dangers of asbestos. Therefore the issue remaining was not that these individuals could claim but how was it possible to prove which of the employers was in fact responsible for their illness?

The House of Lords were able to negotiate this problem by making all the employers liable for the losses claimed by these individuals as any one of them by their actions could have caused the onset of the Mesothelioma. In addition each of the individuals did not have to prove fully that their employers had caused their injuries.

The impact of this case was that it safeguarded the rights of workers who had been subject to appalling working conditions and had been lumbered with life-threatening conditions and so opened the way for solicitors to negotiate compensation for individuals who had not been able to claim rightfully for a number of years.

One the outcomes of this was a case called Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire which was heard at the House of Lords and is relevant in dictating who is allowed to bring a claim for psychiatric illness.

The facts of the case were that relatives of the victims and police officers who had assisted with operations in the immediate events after the tragedy brought a claim for psychiatric harm against South Yorkshire Police. The outcome of the claim was dictated by the House of Lords considering whether the relatives and the policeman’s psychiatric illness could have been reasonably foreseen by South Yorkshire Police when their actions in allowing the stands to be overcrowded caused the tragedy. Unfortunately both parties failed in their claim and their Lordships stated that this was due to them not satisfying the following three stage test:

1. The closeness of the relationship to the victim.
2. The closeness “in time and space” to the situation said to have caused the psychiatric illness.
3. The way in which the psychiatric illness was caused.

It would seem then that if anyone is unfortunate enough to be in a situation where their loved one has been involved in an accident that has caused their death, they can only claim if they are related closely to the victim and they were actually present at the scene of the accident.

The case is Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, and the facts of it were that the Claimant (Mr Bolam) was suffering from acute depression and was undergoing electric shock treatment to treat this. The unfortunate effect of this for Mr Bolam was that it caused him to have muscle spasms which were so severe it caused his pelvis to be fractured. As a result Mr Bolam sued the hospital treating him and argued that:

1. He should have been given drugs to relax him during his treatment.
2. He should have had a restraining sheet placed upon him whilst he was having the treatment.
3. The doctor should have warned him that a potential side effect of the treatment could be that he could break bones.

The result of the case was that the court found for the doctor and Mr Bolam’s claim was unsuccessful. The principles behind this decision which dictate whether professionals will be liable if you have made a claim are:

• If a professional has a particular skill their actions are to be judged according to the level that a reasonable person who also possesses that particular skill would be judged.
• If a professional has a claim brought against them, they will not be liable if their actions are regarded as being acceptable by a body of professional opinion.

So for example if you are bringing a claim for compensation against your GP for misdiagnosing you, your GP would only be liable if there were other members of the General Medical Council who thought that their actions were irresponsible.

The case stemmed from Mrs Donoghue visiting a cafe with her friend in Paisley. Her friend bought her a ginger beer float (which is a glass of ginger beer with ice cream floating on top) importantly the contents were contained in an opaque bottle. Mrs Donoghue proceeded to take a sip from the bottle and then when her friend topped up the drink the remains of snail came out of the bottle. As a result Mrs Donoghue said the sight of it made her ill.

Ultimately Mrs Donoghue sued the manufacturer and the claim ran all the way to the House of Lords where she won her case. The basis of the House of Lords’ decision meant that manufacturers of any products would be liable to consumer if they did not take reasonable care to ensure that their products are safe for use. Furthermore, manufacturers would be liable if they if they could “reasonably foresee” that their failure to take care in checking the safety of products would lead to injury to another individual.

This decision is still relevant today as if you have bought any product from a retailer that is faulty and it causes you injury this case will allow you to bring a claim for compensation.

The rise of this tactic by insurers is probably a result of the fact that more people are becoming aware that they can claim for compensation from accidents and so many insurers are looking to cut their losses by throwing money at your claim which may not necessarily be a fair and accurate reflection of what it is worth.

If you accept these offers they may serve to bring a quick resolution to your claim but it is worth remembering that your solicitor needs to send you to a medical appointment with an expert so as they can provide a report with which to place an accurate value on your injuries. The danger of accepting a pre-medical offer is that it will not include any treatment costs for such things as physiotherapy or MRI Scans (if your injuries are serious enough) or your financial losses – if for example you have been absent from work for a long period of time and you have not been on full pay.

Therefore the risk of accepting pre-medical offer is twofold:
1. You are unlikely to get the right amount of compensation that you deserve for your injuries,
2. You are likely to be left out of pocket as your financial losses from the accident will not be included in any settlement agreed.

This goes against the legal principle behind making an injury claim which is as far as possible you should be put back in the position you were in before the accident happened financially or otherwise.   

The lesson to be taken away from pre-medical offers is that you should not deal directly with the other side’s insurers and instead place your claim in the hands of an experienced solicitor (such as The Injury Lawyers) who will be able to negotiate the amount of compensation that your claim deserves.

The usual way of claiming is that your solicitor will appoint you to represent your child’s interests and you will be their point of contact with the solicitor. If your child’s claim is accepted they will have a medical appointment with a consultant who then prepares a report that your solicitor sends to a barrister who will value your claim. The next step is for court proceedings to be issued so as a judge can conduct a hearing to determine the level of your child’s compensation which should then be held on trust until they are eighteen and old enough to decide how they want to spend it.

This all seems straightforward in theory but unscrupulous insurers will often try and bypass this system by making offers to settle your child’s claim before your child has even been sent to their medical appointment.

Although it may seem acceptable if the insurer puts an offer of say £1,000.00 on the table to settle the claim, it is a real risk if you accept such an offer. The main reasons for this are that the claim will come to an end (as a judge will not be required to officially approve the compensation figure) and you will be required to sign a parental indemnity form.

The danger of this is that the form is worded in such a way that by signing it your child will be allowed to sue you when they are of full age if they believe that by accepting the offer you did not act in their best interests. Therefore it is always best to take the court route to settle the claim not matter how tempting an initial offer from the other party’s insurer is as by accepting it you may leave yourself open to causing unnecessary family troubles in later years.

The Health and Safety at work regulations 1999 set out many of your employer’s responsibilities to you as an employee, here are some of the ways they help make your workplace safer:

• They provide that your employer must make a risk assessment to any risks to your health and safety and to make sure that such risks are identified and removed or (at the very least) the risks should be limited in affecting the safety of employees where possible. 
• Following on from this they should make you aware of these risks and how you should deal with them by having an appropriate policy in place.
• Your employer will also appoint a suitable representative who you can approach regarding any health and safety problems who you can voice your concerns to.
• Your employers should back this up by providing written documentation about any risks to you and how these are dealt with by your employer.
• Conscientious employers should provide you with health and safety training when you start work with them and also on every occasion that new potential risks arise.   

If you have an accident at work that wasn’t your fault and you wish to make a claim, it is worth bearing these key duties of your employer in mind – if they have not followed them it will help Your Lawyers work to bring you the amount of compensation you deserve.

Here’s four easy steps as to how you can claim:

1. If your accident has occurred within the last two years and your injuries have lasted at least 6 weeks you will qualify for your application to be considered by CICA.
2. You should report the accident to the Police as soon as it happens.
3. You should approach your solicitor so as they can fill in a relevant form which will then be submitted to CICA who will make enquiries with the Police and your GP.
4. If your application is successful, CICA will place a value on each of your injuries and make an award for three most serious injuries you have sustained, they award one hundred per cent of your compensation for your most serious injury, thirty per cent of their valuation for your second most serious injury and fifteen per cent for your third most serious injury.

The outcome of this is that you should expect to receive a minimum award of £1,000.00. This system is an less well-known but useful avenue for clients who could not otherwise claim to obtain compensation for the inconsiderate acts of others.

Key to helping you bring your compensation claim is the personal injury pre-action protocol which is one of The Injury Lawyers main tools in bringing your claim to an effective conclusion.  The protocol was first recommended by Lord Woolf in his access to justice report of July 1996. Essentially its aim is to ensure that both parties to the claim disclose to each other the evidence relevant to your accident so as The Injury Lawyers can consider fully whether there are prospects to take your claim on.

To put the protocol into context in the progress of your claim, The Injury Lawyers will write to the responsible party informing them that they are representing you in your claim and will request in the letter that the responsible party pass the letter to their insurance company who then have 21 days to acknowledge your claim.

After this time the responsible party’s insurers have three months under the protocol within which to admit or deny fault for your claim. At the end of this period if they do not accept fault, they must come back with a full range of reasons why they are disputing.

This may sound straightforward in theory but unfortunately many insurers do not come back within the three month period and this can potentially slow your claim down.

However, The Injury Lawyers distinguishes itself from many other firms by countering this issue by making an application for pre-action disclosure against the other side. The implications for your claim are that an application can be made to the court (which will be heard by a judge at a hearing) which if successful will mean that the court can make an order which specifically forces the other side to disclose all the evidence they have relating to your claim and make definite comments on whether they admit or deny fault for your claim.

At The Injury Lawyers we pride ourselves on making these applications regularly and they are one of the reasons why we can provide a swift and effective outcome to your compensation claim.

The latest in a long line of instalments in Channel Four’s often controversial “Cutting Edge” Series of claims saw the programme tackle the role of Personal Injury Lawyers. The programme centred on Steve Ireland a personal injury solicitor in Liverpool and his attitude towards the process of making a personal injury claim. 

The programme’s portrayal was unfortunately bias in that confirmed many of the untrue clichés regarding the Personal Injury profession. For example one of the case studies was of a child who had fractured his toe whilst playing football at school in an uneven grate. Although the narrator did not specifically state this was a spurious claim, with its accent on the fact that the child claimant was looking to spend his money on a car and new football boots it was clear that the programme was showing that potential claimants were simply interested in bringing a claim to make a quick thousand pounds – making it clear what its makers were trying to say.

The other side of the argument was presented in the form of Lambeth Council Worker Jim a former police officer who was charged with defending so called “slip trip claims” against his local authority. Jim was shown in a positive light and again the sentiments of the programme makers were clear with his claim that local authorities spend millions per year paying out compensation claims which in turn hits the pocket of council tax payers. This was clearly meant to push viewers over to one side of the fence.

Other potential claimants considered were a mother who fell over on a school field whilst participating in a parent’s race on her son’s sports day and wanted to sue the school and someone who had a heavy tree branch land on her back when sitting in a park. Although these cases raised some interesting questions as to assessing liability in personal injury claims, I was disappointed that the programme makers could not show some more straightforward liability claims to balance things out and show clients with genuinely serious injuries (who are in the majority with personal injury claims) who are entitled to the compensation they deserve.