Legal Watch: Personal Injury
|
|
- Pierce Foster
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Legal Watch: Personal Injury 10th July 2015 Issue: 069
2 RTA/liability In previous editions of this periodical we have noted the steady increase in the number of reported cases involving accidents between vehicles and pedal cycles. We have another example in MacLeod (Protected Party) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2015) EWCA Civ 688 which is also a reminder of the tendency of judges to prefer the evidence of factual witnesses to that of experts. The claimant/respondent had been cycling home when he was hit by a police car responding to an emergency call. The accident happened at a crossroads junction in London. It was dark and there had been some light rain. The speed limit was 30 mph and the police car approached the junction from the south at 55 mph. The claimant, who was in his late 50s, was wearing a high-visibility jacket, and his bike was brightly coloured with its lights illuminated. There was contact between the car s near side wing and the bike s handlebars. The claimant was thrown forward and collided with the roof lights and rear window of the car. He sustained very serious injuries, including head injuries, and was unable to give evidence regarding the accident. The dispute centred on the direction from which the claimant had approached the junction. The case advanced on his behalf was that he was approaching from the south. The defendant/ appellant alleged that the claimant had been travelling west to east at some speed. The joint accident reconstruction expert evidence suggested that at least the front wheel of the bike had been pointing in the same direction as the car. The judge found the evidence of two of the independent witnesses to be reliable and compelling. One of them said he saw the claimant travelling south; the other heard the accident when walking on the west to east road and said that she had not seen the claimant on that road. The judge concluded that the claimant was cycling from the south when he was hit from behind by the police car. The police car had been driving too fast, without the degree of care and skill which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. In this issue: RTA/liability Public liability Jurisdiction From Plexus Law Scotland Events Plexus and Greenwoods hold a series of events which are open to interested clients. See below for those being held in the next few months: The Major Bodily Injury Group (MBIG) Spring Seminar - You the client The Wellcome Collection, London
3 The defendant appealed and argued that the judge had erred in (i) making findings of fact against the weight of the evidence; (ii) rejecting the possibility of an alternative scenario, based on the expert evidence, that the claimant could have entered the junction from the west at a right angle to the police car, turning his wheel left before impact to try to avoid a collision; (iii) finding that the claimant had turned to his right before the collision, when there was no evidence to support such a finding and such a theory had not been part of his case at trial. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there was always a need to be careful to distinguish evidence from accident witnesses of what they actually saw from evidence about what they thought might have happened. The judge had been alert to that danger. He had been entitled to rely on the evidence of the two independent witnesses. The inference he drew that the claimant had approached the junction from the south was a very powerful one. He was also entitled to conclude that there was nothing in the theory that it would have been impossible for the bicycle to have been hit from behind as the police car was steering to the right without the rear of the bicycle being damaged. The judge was not obliged to accept the expert evidence; he was entitled to apply his common sense and experience when evaluating the totality of the evidence, and it was entirely possible for the accident to have occurred as contended for by the claimant. The judge was not obliged to accept the expert evidence; he was entitled to apply his common sense and experience when evaluating the totality of the evidence There was nothing in the defendant s second ground. The alternative theory that the claimant had entered the junction from the west to east road, but had executed a sudden emergency manoeuvre by turning his handlebars to the left was only advanced at the trial by way of cross-examination, and had not previously been considered by the experts. It was not a realistic explanation. For that alternative theory to arise, the claimant had to have been emerging from the east to west road. The judge was entitled to place reliance on the witness evidence as providing a strong inference that that had not occurred. The judge made no finding that the claimant had turned to his right before the collision. There was ample evidence to show that he and the police car were on convergent courses. Anyone who had ridden a bicycle or driven a car on London s roads knew that subtle changes of direction could make the difference between safety and disaster. The defendant s appeal was on the facts. Where a trial judge had reached a conclusion on the primary facts, it would be only in a rare case, such as where that conclusion was one which (a) was based on a misunderstanding of the evidence; or (b) no reasonable judge could have reached, that the instant court would interfere with it. The defendant had failed to make out any such objection to the judge s findings of fact. There was ample evidence which the judge had fully understood and on which he could properly rely to make his findings. 02
4 Public liability The case of Dunnage v Randall and another (2015) EWCA Civ 673 looks at the impact of a defendant s mental disorder on his liability for causing accidental injury to another. The appellant/claimant appealed against a decision that he was not entitled to damages in negligence in respect of injuries which he sustained when he attempted to prevent his uncle, the first defendant/respondent, from setting fire to himself. The uncle had poured petrol over himself and the claimant had unsuccessfully attempted to prevent him from igniting it. The uncle died and the claimant suffered extremely serious burns to his face and body. The uncle was subsequently diagnosed as having suffered from florid paranoid schizophrenia. The incident took place in the uncle s home and there was an issue about whether it was covered by a household insurance policy under which the second defendant/respondent insurer had agreed to indemnify the uncle in respect of accidental bodily injury to any person. Two psychiatric experts were instructed. They filed an agreed joint statement, concluding that the uncle s delusional state would have been so overwhelming as to render him incapable of formulating any rational alternative action and that he had not been in control of his actions. The judge at first instance held that the extreme nature of the manifestation of his mental illness meant that the uncle had not been acting voluntarily and therefore owed no duty of care to the claimant. The claimant appealed and the issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a person was liable in negligence where he was suffering from a mental disorder. Allowing the appeal, the court held that there was no principle which required the law to excuse a defendant from liability in negligence where he failed to meet the normal standard of care partly because of a medical problem. The courts had consistently and correctly rejected the notion that the standard of care should be adjusted to take account of the defendant s personal characteristics. The single exception in respect of the liability of children should not be extended. It was only if the defendant could properly be said to have done nothing himself to cause the injury that he escaped liability Only defendants whose medical incapacity had the effect of entirely eliminating any fault or responsibility for the injury could be excused. There was no reason for the law of negligence to differentiate between mental and physical illness. The actions of a defendant who was merely impaired by medical problems, whether physical or mental, could not escape liability if he caused injury by failing to exercise reasonable care. To say that a medical condition entirely eliminated any fault or responsibility for the injury simply meant that the defendant himself had done nothing to cause the injury, such as a person whose arm was holding a knife and who was overcome by another forcing him to stab a victim. It was only if the defendant could properly be said to have done nothing himself to cause the injury that he escaped liability. That approach avoided the need for medical witnesses to become engaged with difficult and undefined terms such as volition, will, free choice, consciousness, and personal autonomy. Those formulations emanated from the rules applicable to insanity and automatism as defences in criminal law and were not helpful in the circumstances. In the instant case, there had been a troubling proliferation of terms in play, in the judgment and in the experts evidence. The words involuntary and irrational had almost been used as synonyms. For example, the judge concluded that so long as incapacity altogether removed rational 03
5 motivation there was no liability. It was not helpful to refer to cases which considered the position when, for example, the defendant lost control of his actions, lost the power of choice, ceased to act voluntarily, or lost consciousness. The judge at first instance had held that the defendant s ability to think and act rationally had been eliminated. However, no one would suggest that someone should be excused from liability for negligence if they acted irrationally. The uncle had been under a duty of care and the real issue was whether, unwell as he was, he had breached that duty by failing to measure up to the objective standard of care. The experts had said that the uncle lacked control over his actions, but they meant that he did not have rational control. They were not saying that he had no physical control. His mind, although deluded, directed his actions. His disease did not excuse him from needing to take the care of a reasonable man unless he was not acting or was completely free of any fault, which was not the case. The judge s conclusion had not been open to him. The uncle had breached his duty of care and was liable to the appellant in negligence. The liability was covered by the insurance policy. The policy excluded cover for any acts which were wilful or malicious. However, the injuries were truly accidental and could not have been wilful or malicious because the uncle had clearly lost control of the ability to make choices and could not be said to have intended to injure the appellant. 04
6 Jurisdiction In Legal Watch: Personal Injury 8 we reported the first instance decision in Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc. The case has now been before the Court of Appeal and is reported at (2015) EWCA Civ 665. The claimant/respondent had been injured and her late husband killed in a road traffic accident while on a sightseeing excursion in Egypt. They were both British citizens resident in the UK. The excursion had been arranged by the concierge of the hotel they were staying at. The claimant brought proceedings in the UK to recover damages in contract and in tort. Her three tort claims were in respect of her own injuries, her loss as a dependent of her husband, under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, and for the loss and damage suffered by her husband, in her capacity as executrix of his estate. She was granted permission on a without notice application to serve the proceedings on the appellant/defendant hotel company in Canada. The defendant successfully applied to set that permission aside. The master declared that the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim. The claimant successfully appealed that decision. The issues on the further appeal were whether the judge (i) had erred in finding that the claimant had a good arguable case that the defendant was the other contracting party to the contract for the excursion; (ii) had erred in holding that the claimant had a good arguable case that the contract for the excursion was made in England; (iii) should have held that the damage was sustained in Egypt. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court of Appeal held that the court had jurisdiction if a good arguable case was shown that the case fell within one of the jurisdictional gateways in the CPR. To establish whether a good arguable case had been made out that the claim fell within one of the gateways, the court had to apply what had become known as the Canada Trust gloss *. The judge had not exceeded the function of an appellate tribunal. He was in as good a position as the master to form a view as to whether there was a good arguable case and whether the Canada Trust gloss was satisfied. In those circumstances, he was entitled, and bound, to consider whether the master s decision was wrong. He was not reviewing the exercise by the master of a discretion. The judge had therefore correctly applied the Canada Trust gloss. He was entitled to give the defendant s evidence little weight because it did not address the question of the identity of the other contracting party when the respondent booked the excursion. The defendant s appeal on that point was rejected. *[The standard of proof is that of a good arguable case. In this context the phrase good arguable case connotes that, on the material available, one side has a much better argument than the other] The judge approached the issue almost as a matter of hornbook law. There was no evidence regarding foreign law and he was therefore bound to apply English law. The hotel brochure on available excursions was an invitation to treat; as a result the claimant had to make an offer to book an excursion and, for there to be a binding acceptance, the concierge had to accept. The contract for the excursion was made at the place where the words of acceptance were received. When the place where a contract was formed was in issue, the court had to do its best. The defendant s submission that the Canada Trust gloss could never be satisfied was rejected. A trial judge might well have no direct evidence and have to draw inferences. The court had to consider what was likely to have happened. The claimant had had to approach the concierge and set out her requirements. The defendant did not suggest that it was the concierge who then made suggestions to the claimant. The concierge merely responded to her proposals, which meant that the concierge s role was to accept those proposals. A good arguable case had been demonstrated and the Canada Trust gloss was satisfied. 05
7 The tort jurisdictional gateway should be interpreted consistently with Rome II The issue was whether the claimant s tort claims satisfied the remainder of CPR PD 6B 3.1(9)(a) which permitted service out of the jurisdiction of claims made in tort where (a) damage was sustained within the jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the claimant could not meet that requirement because it covered only direct loss or injury. The tort jurisdictional gateway should be interpreted consistently with Rome II, and no distinction should therefore be based on the fact that the tort gateway talked about damage, which ordinarily would mean any damage rather than the damage or the direct damage. The claimant s personal injury claim and her claim as executrix of her husband s estate had to be brought in Egypt. However, that conclusion did not apply to her loss as a dependent under the 1976 Act, to which English law was applicable. The instant court could, in the absence of proof as to Egyptian law, apply the presumption that Egyptian law was the same as English law. The defendant s argument that the claimant had failed to show a completed cause of action in tort because she had not adduced evidence as to Egyptian law was rejected. 06
8 From Plexus Law Scotland Proposed changes to the limitation period for historic abuse claims In previous editions of Legal Watch: Personal Injury we have followed the development of historic abuse claims. As recently as last week we reported the case of A v Trustees of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society and others in which the claimant brought an action for damages for personal injury arising out of sexual assaults committed by a ministerial servant of a religious society when she was a child. Under both English and Welsh and Scottish law the vast majority of these claims are, by their very nature, statute barred. An issue which the judge must therefore deal with is whether or not he should exercise his discretion to disapply the primary limitation period of three years, under S33 Limitation Act 1980 (England and Wales) or S19A Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act. a sufficiently critical, even sceptical, approach where poor quality evidence relates to events that took place many years ago? These concerns are increased because of the ever expanding definition of vicarious liability where the necessary relationship of employer and employee has been extended to relationships akin to that of employer and employee. The consultation is open until 18 September For further information please contact Cameron McNaught. E: Cameron.McNaught@plexusscotland.co.uk T: In recognition that the circumstances of historical child abuse cases are sufficiently unique from other cases involving personal injury the Scottish government has started a consultation in regard to a proposal to remove the three year limitation period in such cases. This would take away a defender s limitation defence and the requirement for the pursuer then to argue successfully for S19A to be applied. The rationale for this approach is that in cases of this type, many pursuers will still be reliant on evidence which may be difficult to obtain or of insufficient quality to prove their cases. Limitation is seen as nothing more than an unnecessary additional hurdle. Courts will still need to hear the evidence and hear from witnesses which is likely to include the pursuer in an adversarial process which may prove challenging, emotional and difficult for anyone who raises an action. These proposals will no doubt find favour with pursuers. The issue for defenders will be the absence of a specific test as to whether or not a fair trial of the issues is still possible after the passage of time. Will trial judges adopt 07
9 Publications If you would like to receive any of the below, please indicating which you would like to receive. Weekly: Legal Watch: Personal Injury Monthly: Legal Watch: Property Risks & Coverage Quarterly: Legal Watch: Health & Safety Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity Legal Watch: Disease Contact Us For more information please contact: Geoff Owen, Consultant T: E: To unsubscribe from this newsletter please The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC Registered office: 12 Dingwall Road, Croydon, CR0 2NA. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.
Legal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd July 2014 Issue: 025 Part 36 As can be seen from the case of Supergroup Plc v Justenough Software Corp Inc [Lawtel 30/06/2014] Part 36 is still the subject of varying interpretations.
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 15th January 2015 Issue: 047 Public liability The difference between a local authority s powers and its duties was examined in Foulds (Deceased) v Devon County Council [Lawtel
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 23rd July 2015 Issue: 071 Part 36 In the commercial claim of Dutton and others v Minards and others [Lawtel 20/07/2015] we have yet another case dealing with Part 36. Former
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury. February 2014 Issue 007
Legal Watch: Personal Injury February 2014 Issue 007 Civil Procedure/Compliance with Directions Almost every day brings more post Jackson/Mitchell cases. Although these are non-personal injury cases we
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd October 2014 Issue: 034 Causation/pre-existing condition The case of Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust and another (2014) EWHC 3016 (QB) deals
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 1st May 2015 Issue: 061 Ex turpi causa McCracken (Protected Party) v Smith (1); MIB (2); Bell (3) (2015) EWCA Civ 380 is the latest in a line of cases looking at the defence
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 5th June 2014 Issue: 021 Civil Procedure/Service Of Claim Form There has been a run of cases relating to the service of claim forms and this continues with Kaki v National
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 1st April 2015 Issue: 058 Limitation Insurers who may be faced with claims for historical sex abuse will gain some comfort from the decision in RE v GE (2015) EWCA Civ 287.
More informationTechnical claims brief
QBE European Operations Technical claims brief Monthly update July 2015 Technical claims brief Monthly update July 2015 Contents Judgment on additional liabilities Coventry v Lawrence [2015] 1 Law on foreseeability
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 19th February 2015 Issue: 052 Civil procedure/expert witnesses One of the concerns practitioners have in the post Jackson era is the extent to which the courts will allow time
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 6th February 2015 Issue: 050 Public liability/landlord & tenant The case of Edwards v Kumarasamy (2015) EWCA Civ 20 considers the liability of a landlord for personal injury
More informationIn order to prove negligence the Claimant must establish the following:
Introduction A wealth of law exists to provide compensation to people who have suffered injuries, both physical and psychological, following an accident. This fact sheet provides a very brief guide to
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 12th March 2015 Issue: 055 RTA liability/ex turpi causa The case of Flint v Tittensor (1) and MIB (2) (2015) EWHC 466 (QB) is the latest in a series of claims in which defendants
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 8th August 2014 Issue: 030 Liability/RTA In this publication s predecessor, Greenwoods PI Alert 370, we reported the first instance decision in Landau v Big Bus Co Ltd and
More informationLegal Watch Personal Injury
Legal Watch Personal Injury February 2014 Issue 006 Civil Procedure/Costs budgeting With costs budgeting proving to be the current hot potato, it is not helpful that two versions of a similar court form
More informationPERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
More informationTitle 8 Laws of Bermuda Item 67 BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Savings 3 Apportionment of liability where contributory negligence 4 Defence of common employment abolished
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF
More informationto Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: MVN (R on the application of) v London Borough of Greenwich [2015]
Headlight motoring news welcome to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: case summaries CPR 36 offers MVN (R on the application of) v London Borough of Greenwich
More informationSCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY. DISCUSSION PAPER No. 120
SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY DISCUSSION PAPER No. 120 A RESPONSE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS NOVEMBER 2002 The executive committee would like to acknowledge
More informationTechnical claims brief
QBE European Operations Technical claims brief Monthly update January/February 2014 Technical claims brief Monthly update January/February 2014 Contents Legislation 1 Mesothelioma Bill passes at report
More informationConsultation on a proposed Apologies (Scotland) Bill
Consultation on a proposed Apologies (Scotland) Bill A response by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers September 2012 Introduction The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), a not-for-profit
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 23, 2007 v No. 259987 Oakland Circuit Court CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2000-024949-CZ and Defendant/Cross-Defendant-
More informationFAMILY CLASSIC LEGAL PROTECTION & ADVICE KEY FACTS BROCHURE
FAMILY CLASSIC LEGAL PROTECTION & ADVICE KEY FACTS BROCHURE WHY YOU NEED DAS FAMILY CLASSIC STANDARD COVERS EMPLOYMENT COVER CONSUMER CONTRACT DISPUTES PERSONAL INJURY NEIGHBOUR PROBLEMS HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS
More informationChapter 4 Crimes (Review)
Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.
More informationLIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and
LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation
More informationLegal Watch What s on the horizon
Legal Watch What s on the horizon January 2014 Introduction Welcome to the first joint Plexus/Greenwoods review of what the next quarter holds for those involved in personal injury claims. In This Issue:
More informationThe criminal and civil justice systems in England and Wales
The criminal and civil justice systems in England and Wales Introduction Important differences exist between UK civil and criminal proceedings that have implications for fraud investigations, including
More informationHow To Sue A Foreign Hotel In Tunisia
CILA Conference 2014 Holidays from Hell: Handling Incidents Abroad Presented by Alex Padfield Managing Partner Hextalls Ltd Types of claims Applicable law The tests for liability Jurisdiction Subrogation
More informationConditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know
Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know This document forms an important part of your agreement with us. Please read it carefully. Definitions of words used in this document and the accompanying
More informationTypes of dispute. Guide to Estates & Wills
PERSONAL LITIGATION TYPES OF DISPUTE Types of dispute Guide to Estates & Wills 2 In order for a Will to be valid, it must comply with certain formal requirements and if this is in doubt a claim can be
More informationAsbestos Disease Claims
Asbestos Disease Claims A client s guide Spring 2007 Contents 2. Essential elements for a successful claim 3. What we will do 3. Funding the case 3. Preliminary investigations 4. What happens next? 4.
More informationFIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part
FIXED COSTS PART 45 PART 45 Contents of this Part I FIXED COSTS Rule 45.1 Scope of this Section Rule 45.2 Amount of fixed commencement costs in a claim for the recovery of money or goods Rule 45.2A Amount
More informationSouth Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001
South Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001 An Act to reform the law relating to contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability; to amend the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y-
n IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y- V. b e a c h...a n d. o t h e r s REASONS FOR JUDGMENT t u l l y v. BEACH AND OTHERS - JUDGMENT (o r a l ). JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY DIXON C.J. COMM:
More informationLEVEL 4 - UNIT 7 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2015
LEVEL 4 - UNIT 7 INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and
More informationInquests & Coroner's Courts.
INFORMATION HANDBOOK No 3 Inquests & Coroner's Courts. CADD contact numbers: Help Line: 0845 1235542 (local rate call) Office Phone & Fax: 0845 1235541 / 43 Address: CADD, PO Box 62, Brighouse, HD6 3YY.
More informationEmployer s Liability in a Practical Context
Contents Table of Statutes Table of Secondary Legislation Table of Cases Chapter 1: Employer s Liability in a Practical Context 1.1 Introduction 1.2 The parties to an employer s liability claim 1.3 An
More informationInsight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group
Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Issue #2 11 February 2016 Alexander House 94 Talbot Road Manchester M16 0SP T. 03300 240 711 F. 03300 240 712 www.h-f.co.uk Page 1 Save the
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG LENTIKILE DAVID PHETE JUDGMENT. [1] This is an action instituted by Lentikile David Phete, a major male
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter
More informationIndependent Living Insurance. Policy Summary
Independent Living Insurance Policy Summary Independent Living Insurance This summary does not contain the full terms and conditions of your policy. Please refer to your policy document for the full terms
More informationEMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013 By Justin Valentine Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amends section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work
More informationGARETH DAVID CODD (an infant suing by Mr T Griffiths his Uncle and Next Friend) v THOMSONS TOUR OPERATORS LIMITED
GARETH DAVID CODD (an infant suing by Mr T Griffiths his Uncle and Next Friend) v THOMSONS TOUR OPERATORS LIMITED Before: LORD JUSTICE SWINTON THOMAS And LORD JUSTICE BROOKE [2000] EWCA Civ 5566 Litigation
More informationThis is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland
More informationCASE NO. 1D09-2525. Robert B. George and Christian P. George of Liles, Gavin, Costantino, George & Dearing, P. A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CINDY L. SOREL, n/k/a CINDY L. EBNER, CASE NO. 1D09-2525 Appellant, v. TROY CHARLES KOONCE and COMCAST OF GREATER FLORIDA/GEORGIA, INC.,
More informationMOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT
Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s
More informationConditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know
Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know This document forms an important part of your agreement with us. Please read it carefully. Definitions of words used in this document and the accompanying
More informationConcerning the Cap on Pain and Suffering Awards for Minor Injuries
Discussion Paper Concerning the Cap on Pain and Suffering Awards for Minor Injuries Office of the Superintendent of Insurance January, 2010 Introduction The Province of Nova Scotia regulates automobile
More informationNEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE. Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice.
NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice. The standard of care owed by a solicitor to his client has been established for
More informationLIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT
LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 7:09 Act 36 of 1997 Amended by 2 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 18.. L.R.O. 2 Chap. 7:09 Limitation of Certain Actions
More informationAt first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is just
TWO IMPORTANT CASES WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP the test of remoteness. At first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is just another slightly dreary solicitors negligence case where
More informationDrinking and Driving: The Law and Procedure
Drinking and Driving: The Law and Procedure The Offences Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence for a person: 1. to drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public
More informationReform to Lost Years Damages in Mesothelioma Claims
Reform to Lost Years Damages in Mesothelioma Claims September 2008 Neil Fisher and Kevin Johnson John Pickering and Partners LLP Email: kj@johnpickering.co.uk 19 Castle Street Liverpool L2 4SX Tel: 0151
More informationDO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY: MR NADIM BASHIR NEW PARK COURT CHAMBERS LEEDS LSI 2SJ TEL: 0113 243 3277 1 1. Introduction If there was any doubt
More informationOPENING INSTRUCTIONS
OPENING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Jury: Respective Roles of Jurors and Judge You ve been chosen as jurors for this case, and you ve taken an oath to decide the facts fairly. As we begin the trial, I
More informationCivil Law of Damages: Issues in Personal Injury - A Consultation Paper The Law Society of Scotland s response March 2013
Consultation Response Civil Law of Damages: Issues in Personal Injury - A Consultation Paper The Law Society of Scotland s response March 2013 The Law Society of Scotland 2013 Introduction The Law Society
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and EDMUND BICAR. 2010: March 25; May 3.
SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2008/014 BETWEEN: EASTERN CARIBBEAN INSURANCE LTD. Appellant and EDMUND BICAR Before: The Hon. Mde. Janice George-Creque The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste The Hon.
More informationLevy & McRae CLAIMS IN SCOTLAND
Levy & McRae CLAIMS IN SCOTLAND Contents 3 Introduction 4 Voluntary Pre-action Protocol 6 Raising a Court Action 7 Sheriff Court 9 Court of Session 10 Time Bar 11 Hearings 12 Expenses 2 Introduction Credible,
More informationGUARDIANSHIP OF ADULTS
Taylor Cochr ane Making Service A Matter of Practice Since 1835 GUARDIANSHIP OF ADULTS The material in this booklet is a compilation of in house materials developed by Taylor MacLellan and three brochures
More informationTaylor Review. UNISON Scotland response to Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland
Taylor Review UNISON Scotland response to Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland March 2012 Taylor Review UNISON Scotland response to Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation
More informationLIMITATIONS. The Limitations Act. being
1 LIMITATIONS c. L-16.1 The Limitations Act being Chapter L-16.1* of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2004 (effective May 1, 2005), as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2007, c.28. *NOTE: Pursuant
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT.
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,
More informationactus reus + mens rea = CRIME
THE CRIMINAL EQUATION: actus reus + mens rea = CRIME Proof of Offences A person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until that person pleads guilty or is proven guilty in court. The Crown
More informationLimiting liability for professional firms
Limiting liability for professional firms Introduction Disputes can arise between providers of professional services and their clients or other (third) parties for a number of reasons. Limiting or excluding
More informationScottish Government Removal of the 3 year limitation period from civil actions for damages for personal injury for in care survivors of historical
Scottish Government Removal of the 3 year limitation period from civil actions for damages for personal injury for in care survivors of historical child abuse A response by the Association of Personal
More informationTORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK
TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 DEFENCES 6 Consent (Or Volenti Non Fit Injuria) 6 Illegtality (or Ex Trupi Causa) 7 Contributory Negiligence 8 NEGLIGENCE 11 Duty of Care 11
More informationCHAPTER 310 THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
CHAPTER 310 THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title 1. Short title and application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY
More informationLegal Watch: Personal Injury
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 22nd April 2015 Issue: 060 Employers liability In Legal Watch: Personal Injury 49 we reported the case of Dusek and others v Stormharbour Securities LLP (2015) as an illustration
More informationLegal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland
Legal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland This help sheet explains your legal rights if you have been injured as a result of medical treatment and the steps involved in seeking compensation through
More informationRole of Executors (and Trustees) in claims
Role of Executors (and Trustees) in claims The role of executors in claims against an estate depends very much on the type of claim being advanced. As we can see in the presentation, executors often feel
More informationFIRE ON THE ICE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE REGARDING CAUSATION
Aaron L. Sherriff FIRE ON THE ICE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE REGARDING CAUSATION 2 Aaron L. Sherriff TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CGL POLICY... 3 II. NEGLIGENCE... 3 III. MR. HANKE... 4
More informationPERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. 2. Who can
More informationTHE MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OF SINGAPORE
456 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (1998) THE MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OF SINGAPORE WHAT IS AN MIB AND WHAT IS ITS ROLE? To appreciate this it will be useful to take a look at the first Motor Insurers Bureau
More informationTransport Committee cycling consultation
Transport Committee cycling consultation Thompsons Solicitors has been standing up for the injured and mistreated since the firm was founded by Harry Thompson in 1921. We have fought for millions of people,
More informationDEALING WITH INTERNATIONAL PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS KATHERINE ALLEN IRWIN MITCHELL SOLICITORS
DEALING WITH INTERNATIONAL PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS KATHERINE ALLEN IRWIN MITCHELL SOLICITORS Acting for clients who have been injured in accidents abroad can be immensely challenging and complex. There
More informationA GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
A GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION Being a victim of crime such as physical or sexual assault can have significant and long-term consequences for a woman s health and wellbeing. If you have experienced
More informationMedical Negligence. A guide for clients. The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience. The Legal 500
www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A guide for clients The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience.
More informationLegal Research Record
Legal Research Record Summary of problem(s) Design and Dress Limited (DDL) has experienced problems due to the alleged harassment of one of their employees, Susie Baker, by another employee, Stephen Harding
More informationCONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS GUIDANCE
Disclaimer In all cases solicitors must ensure that any agreement with a client is made in compliance with their professional duties, the requirements of the SRA and any statutory requirements depending
More informationQBE European Operations Professional liability
QBE European Operations Professional liability Disclosure of insurance details revisited QBE Professional Liability Disclosure of insurance details revisited/november 2013 1 Disclosure of insurance details
More informationJAMAICA THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD ANDERSON APPELLANT
[2012] JMCA Civ 43 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 37/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD
More informationMedical Negligence. A client s guide. head and shoulders above the rest in terms of skills, experience and quality. The Legal 500
www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A client s guide head and shoulders above the rest in terms of skills, experience
More informationSUBMISSION OF THE LAW SOCIETY S WORKING PARTY TO THE LEGCO LEGAL AFFAIRS PANEL REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF RECOVERY AGENTS IN HONG KONG
LC Paper No. CB(2)517/05-06(01) SUBMISSION OF THE LAW SOCIETY S WORKING PARTY TO THE LEGCO LEGAL AFFAIRS PANEL REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF RECOVERY AGENTS IN HONG KONG 1. This is a submission of the Recovery
More informationProfessional Practice 544
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 mhanahan@schiffhardin.com Schiff Hardin LLP.
More informationBefore : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COULSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : PANTELLI ASSOCIATES LIMITED.
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-10-332 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
More informationGeneral Liability Insurance
General Liability Insurance Insurance Company: Alberta School Boards Insurance Exchange (ASBIE) Insuring Agreement ASBIE agrees to pay on behalf of the Subscriber all sums that they are legally obligated
More informationCASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research
CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements, [2012] 7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements
More informationPg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP
Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited
More informationLOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS
LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS The Concept of Negligence If you have been injured, only an experienced Louisiana personal injury accident attorney can evaluate the unique facts and circumstances
More informationMilitary Claims INJURY & NEGLIGENCE SPECIALISTS
Military Claims INJURY & NEGLIGENCE SPECIALISTS Injury & Negligence They got the result I wanted, which made what was a difficult time much better for me and my family. *Steve (Merseyside) WELCOME TO PANNONE
More informationscrutiny: Essential Guide to CRU Benefits and Appeals
scrutiny: Essential Guide to CRU Benefits and Appeals Introduction In writing this guide, we had in mind a broad spectrum of readers from the novice (for whom some of this may be new) through to the more
More informationClinical Negligence. Issue of proceedings through to Trial
Clinical Negligence Issue of proceedings through to Trial Lees Solicitors LLP 44/45 Hamilton Square Birkenhead Wirral CH41 5AR Tel: 0151 647 9381 Fax: 0151 649 0124 e-mail: newclaim@lees.co.uk 1 1 April
More informationMARCH 2013. Germaine v Hexham & St Helier University Hospital NHS Trust (Lawtel 4/2/2013) Page. 1 Employers Liability Contributory Negligence
Page 1 Employers Liability Contributory Negligence 2 Employers Liability Mesothelioma MARCH 2013 4 Fraud Death by Dangerous Driving Germaine v Hexham & St Helier University Hospital NHS Trust (Lawtel 4/2/2013)
More informationInformation sheet Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims
Information sheet Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims You have received this information sheet as it is likely that your claim will proceed
More informationThe Mountaineering Council of Scotland and Perkins Slade. Civil Liability Insurance: Frequently Asked Questions
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland and Perkins Slade Civil Liability Insurance: Frequently Asked Questions MCofS and Perkins Slade have compiled these FAQs with the aim of providing clubs and individual
More informationPROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION & INSURANCE Review
A monthly review of property & construction, insurance, commercial & financial risks Issue 77: November 2012 In this issue - Restriction of strict liability in fire cases - Subrogated recovery and deliberate
More informationHon. RICHARD STONE (Ret.)
Hon. RICHARD STONE (Ret.) Mediator Arbitrator Private Judge Referee Representative Cases PERSONAL INJURY Petitioner claimed he is mentally ill and under the care of Defendant Mental Health Clinic, and
More informationWilliams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011
Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Summary In a mesothelioma claim, the defendant was not in breach of duty in relation to exposure to asbestos for
More informationDefendant has a duty to act as a reasonable person would in like or similar circumstances to avoid causing unreasonable risk of harm to others.
NEGLIGENCE (Heavily Tested) (Write On the Bar): In order for Plaintiff to recover in Negligence, she or he must plead and prove: DUTY, BREACH OF DUTY, ACTUAL CAUSATION, PROXIMATE CAUSATION, AND DAMAGES.
More information