Unfortunately, the answer isn’t a simple one. This area of law is a bit grey and there are several different opinions on the matter…

Take the case of Pell V Mosely for example. In this case, the person making a claim was a motorcyclist who overtook a line of slow moving traffic on a single carriageway. The Defendant turn right into a field and the two collided. The court held that the car turning right should have taken more care before turning. The judge therefore found the driver turning right 100% to blame on those circumstance.

Looking at this claim you would be able to sue the driver who turned into your path and recover 100% of your losses.

However, in other cases the court does not always totally take the side of the overtaking vehicle and the Courts do take into consideration the following when making their decision:

· The speed you were travelling at prior to the impact

· Whether the turning vehicle was indicating

· If the turning vehicle was not indicating, should it have been obvious in any way that the vehicle was going to or was about to turn or pull out?

So if you are the overtaking vehicle the Court may find in your favour but the specific outcome of your case will depend on the specific circumstances of the accident and the Court will take into account the above factors when making there decision.

The contention put forward by the claimants’ was that the safety of a place of work should be judged entirely objectively and not by whether or not the injuries were reasonably foreseeable. This was originally rejected at trial, with the court suggesting that the standard of safety under the Factories Act 1921 section 29 was governed by the general standard which it ought to be reasonable for employers to adopt at the relevant time.

However, Lady Justice Smith said that Judge Inglis, who judged the original trial, erred and that the test for whether a working environment was made and kept safe was to be perceived objectively.

It seems from this judgement that what amounts to a safe working environment needs to be constantly evaluated and reassessed by an employer and as such is an ongoing concern. This puts a higher burden on the employer and increases the duty of care and therefore from the perspective of those who have suffered an injury through an accident at work it appears to increase the possibility of their chances of success.

An overview of the legislation

In general terms, PUWER prescribes that work equipment must be:

· Suitable for purpose

· Safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and, where appropriate, inspected to make sure that it remains in such condition

· Used only by people who have received the necessary information, instruction and training to allow them to do so safely i.e. without risk to themselves or others

· Accompanied by any appropriate safety measures e.g. protective devices, markings and warnings.

So what if something goes wrong with work equipment and you suffer an accident due to one of the above not being adhered to? Who do the regulations apply to and, therefore, who might be deemed responsible for the accident and liable should you suffer an injury? This is governed by regulation 3 of PUWER.

There are three groups who need to adhere to PUWER:

· An employer, in respect of work equipment provided for or used by his employee

· A self-employed person, in respect of work equipment used by him at work

· Anyone exercising control of: (1) work equipment,(2) anyone using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment or (3) the way in which work equipment is used at work.

One of these defences is called contributory negligence.

This is where a person who was the victim of an accident is believed to have also contributed to the accident in someway. If they were partly at fault then it might be that the court believes that they should be made to pay a contribution towards the damages awarded.

You might wonder how if one party admits liability for an accident the other can also be at fault so here is an attempt to explain how it works:

Say there are two parties involved in a car accident, one a driver and one a pedestrian. The driver is driving too fast and hits the pedestrian who is crossing the road. However before stepping in to the road the pedestrian fails to look for oncoming traffic. Here the driver might be at fault because they were driving at an excessive speed but the pedestrian has contributed to causing the accident by failing to look both ways and it would be partially their fault as well.

However, if you are found to have been partially at fault for an accident it doesn’t mean that you pay the damages to the other side! Instead if you were found to have contributed, say 20%, to your injuries it would just mean that you would get 80% of the compensation offered e.g. If you accepted an offer of £1000 you would only receive £800 and it is in effect like you have paid the other side the 20% contribution of £200.

Each user is held to the standard of taking such care as is reasonable to ensure that he does not injure his neighbour.

In law this is based upon the case of Nettleship v Weston which is that of the ordinary, skilful, average motorist. However, it is rarely as simple as that. The case of Sam v Atkins demonstrates that there is more to finding a verdict of negligence than simple fault. It requires that one of the parties breached the duty of care that they owed to the other person involved in the accident and that the breach caused the accident.

So what are the main errors that people make that result in accidents occurring in road traffic accidents? In most cases it boils down to one of the following two reasons:

· Failure to keep a proper lookout; and/or

· Driving too fast

When you think about it most of the other possible causes of accidents feed of these two. For example, turning out of a side road when it isn’t safe to do so is a result of a failure to keep a proper lookout; and failing to brake in time is a collective of both of the reasons. Therefore, in determining who is at fault for an accident we look at the above two principles as the primary reasons in determining liability.

As an expert Personal Injury Lawyer with many hard years of practice you might want to ask me about:-

• How to pick an Injury Lawyer?
• Whether you can claim?
• How much you can claim?
• No Win No Fee’s
• Serious injury claims
• What your injury is worth
• Or anything at all

I have been specialising in Personal Injury Claims for many years now and have a vast amount of knowledge and specialist experience that I would love to share with you…

If for example you have sustained a whiplash injury then just reply to this post with the details of your injury and I promise to come back to you with my valuation of your whiplash injury claim at my earliest opportunity..

I have years of actual experience in all types of accident & Injury claims and as Personal Injury Expert Lawyer would be more than happy to help you with any of your queries….

All the best,

Aman