News Category 2
Cyclist Death on Tram Tracks: An Accident Waiting to Happen? - Caroline Kelly, Thorntons Law
09/06/17. I was saddened to read the news of a 24 year old cyclist being killed in Edinburgh city centre after the wheels of her bike became stuck in the tram tracks, causing her to fall into the path of a minibus. My sympathy lies not only with the family of the cyclist but also with the driver of the minibus who is understandably distressed at the incident.
I, and a number of my colleagues at Thorntons Law, are keen cyclists and I view cycling as a great alternative mode of transport as well as a way to fit some exercise into our daily lives, and of course help reduce congestion. But I am also aware of the dangers that tram tracks can pose to cyclists and the number of cyclists injured as a result of the tram tracks in Edinburgh (around 200) confirm that they do pose a danger to cyclists.
There appear to be a number of problems with the tracks :-
-
Poor lighting
-
Poor signage
-
The need for a non-slip coating on the tracks
-
Lack of a mechanism to prevent cycle tyres becoming stuck in the track
-
Cyclists having to cross tracks at less than 90-degree angles
-
Lack of bike lanes to segregate cyclists and trams
Edinburgh are not alone in having these problems. Sheffield have also had problems with tram tracks, with CycleSheffield having received over 380 accident reports since January 2015. Sheffield Council approved a Tram Cycle Safety Action Plan in July 2016 starting with implementing warning signs as a first step.
Whilst falling off a bike might seem like something that happens to young children, as can be seen from this week’s fatality, having such an accident on the tram tracks can have serious and potentially fatal consequences. I would hope that this tragedy would be a sufficient wake up call for a review of the problems and for a safety action plan to be developed. Such a plan would take time to develop and put into action but in a society where we are trying to encourage people to be healthier and to cycle as opposed to using other methods of transport, it seems to me that this would be the first step in ensuring that cyclists can get out and about in the city centre safely.
Caroline Kelly is a solicitor advocate and partner at Thorntons Law specialising in personal injury claims
Image: public domain
Material Contribution in Cases of Psychiatric Injury - Richard Johnson, Browne Jacobson
07/06/17. The difficulty of raising causation arguments when defending claims for psychiatric injury was exemplified by the case of, Diane Jennifer Kennedy v London Ambulance Service Trust (LAS) 2016 QBD.
The basic facts of the case were that the claimant was employed by LAS as a sole responder and had been for about 10 years. The claimant was supplied with a vehicle that leaked harmful carbon monoxide fumes into the driver’s compartment. The claimant became unwell and nauseous and was diagnosed with carbon monoxide poisoning causing her to have time off sick from work in April 2011.
The claimant returned to work in September 2011 in an administrative role. In January 2013 the claimant returned to her role as a responder but, because of ongoing psychiatric problems, arrangements were made for the claimant to work alongside a colleague rather than work as a solo responder. Unfortunately, these arrangements came to an end. The claimant, after being advised by her employer that the new arrangements could not continue, went off sick.
The Occupational Health Department were...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/didbygraham/219375981/
Historic Abuse Claims: When Is Late Too Late? - Paul Donnelly & Samantha Chambers, DWF LLP
02/06/17. Six reported cases in three months give clear judicial guidance on when the court should/should not disapply the limitation period.
Paul Donnelly and Samantha Chambers acted on behalf of the Defendant and its insurers in Wilde v Coventry City Council (2017) – a historic abuse claim where HHJ Moloney QC refused to exercise discretion (under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980) to disapply the limitation period following a 2 day preliminary issue hearing. In this article, they discuss the Wilde case and other recent court decisions on limitation defences in historic sexual abuse cases, to provide guidance on when judicial discretion to disapply the limitation period should/should not be exercised.
Since A v Hoare [2008] a deliberate criminal act of abuse is considered a negligent act for limitation purposes. Therefore, under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980, the claim must be brought within 3 years from the date the cause of action accrued, or from when the claimant acquired the requisite 'knowledge' (under section 14). Unlike the pre 2008 position, the court now also has discretion to disapply that primary limitation period under section 33 of the Act "if it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow an action to proceed".
Of particular relevance to the claimant's claim in Wilde is that, unknown to many, section 33(1) provides the ability for the court to...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagez
The Law of Unintended Consequences (or Determining Applicable Law in Cross-Border Cases) - Kelvin Farmaner, Trethowans LLP & FOIL
30/05/17. The recent decision in Marshall v MIB (1) Pickard (2) Generali (3) 2017 provides a useful example of how the rules governing which laws apply in cross border personal injury cases can potentially give rise to unintended consequences.
The facts of the case were a little convoluted. An uninsured Peugeot car driver (B) had hit British Nationals (M and P) as they were standing behind a Ford Fiesta car and trailer whilst the trailer was being attended to by a recovery truck on the side of the motorway. P had been driving the Fiesta and M was his passenger. After hitting M and P, the Peugeot collided with the trailer, shunting it into the Fiesta which, in turn, was shunted into the recovery truck. P was thrown forward by the impact with the Peugeot and landed clear of the vehicles. He suffered serious injuries. M was thrown off the front of the Peugeot and the trailer fell on his leg. He died at the scene. The Fiesta was registered in the UK and insured by RSA; the recovery truck was registered in France and insured by Generali.
From a UK perspective at least most people would perhaps think there would be no liability attaching to the recovery truck driver. In fact the recovery truck driver and his insurers faced the very real prospect of being held wholly responsible for the claims of both M and P. However, because of the cross border nature of the case the Court first had to determine which laws would apply to the case...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Contributory Negligence Discount of 96.5% in First Sheriff Court Jury Trial - Catriona Hepburn & John Wilson, Brodies LLP
28/05/17. Scotland’s County Court, the Sheriff Court, has recently seen the reintroduction of jury trials in civil cases. The 2015 legislation creating the specialised All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court (ASPIC) brought back the use of juries for the first time since 1980. The first trial implementing this new option was heard earlier this month.
The case involved a child who injured his leg in the playground. The accident and injury were admitted and damages were agreed at £15,000. However, the local authority contested liability – the claimant said the local authority was obliged to pay damages for the injuries sustained by her son. It was this issue which the jury had to consider.
Although they returned a verdict in favour of the claimant, the jury found that the child’s contributory negligence amounted to 96.5%. The claimant was accordingly awarded damages of just £525! It is not known whether or not there was a tender (Part 36 offer) in place but it certainly seems likely that there will have been an argument on costs after such an award...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/titlezpix
More Articles...
- Fresh Consideration of How Discount Rate Is Set Is a Post-Election Priority - Shirley Denyer, Shirley Denyer LLP & FOIL
- The Journey Continues - Henrietta Hughes
- 'Pure Diagnosis' and 'Pure Treatment': A case considering whether the Bolam principle is applicable across the spectrum of Clinical Negligence cases - Penny Fitzpatrick & Marianne Walker, Slater and Gordon
- PI Practitioner, May 2017
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
