News Category 2
Injuring the Already Injured - Dr Jock Mackenzie, Anthony Gold Solicitors
23/02/15. In Christine Reaney v (1) University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust (2) Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC 3016 (QB), Foskett J. had to consider the extent that the consequences and their sequelae of admitted negligence had worsened an underlying non-negligent condition.
The background
The Claimant (R), aged 67, non-negligently developed transverse myelitis, an inflammatory condition of the spinal cord, which left her permanently paralysed below the thoracic level of T7. She had no feeling below that level and had no control over her bladder or bowels. During a period of extended hospitalisation subsequently, R negligently was allowed to develop a number of Grade 4 pressure sores with consequential osteomyelitis, flexion contractures of her legs and a hip dislocation.
There was dispute as to the correct legal approach to the analysis of such a situation. However, it was agreed that the starting point was to divide the case into the “but for” scenario (i.e. what R’s likely position would have been but for the pressure sores and their consequences) and the “post-pressure sores scenario”...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Quantum: General Damages, Common Heads of Loss in RTA Claims (Non-Vehicle Related Damages) and Avoiding Negligence Claims - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
21/02/15. With the introduction of the Low Value Portal, it has now become more important than ever for all fee earners to be able to value RTA claims up to and including £25,000 (the Portal Limit). This Chapter is designed to provide a straightforward guide to the starting points for valuing low to mid-range RTA claims. This is not a damages book and therefore is not designed to be an all encompassing guide as to Quantum, but the Chapter may be a reference point to further investigations.
Vehicle related damages (credit hire, vehicle damage, diminution, storage and recovery) are not dealt with in this Chapter but will be considered in a separate Chapter given the importance of these issues to RTA claims.
Pain, Suffering & Loss of Amenity – General Damages
Damages are awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The level of damages will depend upon the duration and intensity of the pain and suffering. The assessment is subjective and it is for the Claimant to give evidence of the effects of the injury and to provide the Court with as full a picture as possible as to the injury sustained and its effects on the Claimant.
Damages are also awarded for loss of amenity, which is classified as a reduction in the ability of the Claimant to perform everyday tasks and enjoy life. It can include interference with hobbies and pastimes, loss of a skill or craft, loss of enjoyment of a holiday or interference with other aspects of the Claimant’s life.
It is important that the Claimant’s Statement deals with all heads in relation to pain, suffering and loss of amenity and that the Statement is as detailed as possible in this regard. The statement may include the following information:-
Image ©iStockphoto.com/studiocasper
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
| 'RTA Personal Injury Claims: A Practical Guide Post-Jackson' by Andrew Mckie ISBN: 978-0-9575530-7-1 Published: February 2015 Price: £49.99 Click here to order now |
![[Click here to read chapter one online for free!]](http://www.pibriefupdate.com/images/rtapiclaims.png) |
Railing Against Expanding Highway Authorities' Duties of Care - Andrew Spencer, 1 Chancery Lane
19/02/15. There is a very useful discussion in the recent case of Foulds v Devon County Council about the nature of a highway authority’s common law duty to road users.
The issue in the case was whether a highways authority had assumed a common law duty of care to road users in respect of railings erected on a low wall between the highway and a steep drop. A cyclist lost control and crashed through the railings, falling down the drop, and sustained serious head and spinal injuries.
The Defendant had installed the railings to provide a degree of protection to highway users from the drop. The Defendant had inspected and periodically maintained them. However, the railings were rusty and not sufficiently strong to...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/olaser
Exploding the Myth of ‘Compensation Culture’ - John Spencer, Spencers Solicitors (President of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers)
17/02/15.The term ‘compensation culture’ has been a favourite media buzzword in recent years with both journalists and politicians quick to point to a rise in spurious claims. It is my belief that an analysis of the facts show this phrase not only to be a misleading one but also one that unfairly demonises those seeking fair redress. I am not alone in this view. As far back as 2004, David Arculus, chairman of the government’s Better Regulation Task Force, concluded that ‘compensation culture’ was an ‘urban myth.’
The evidence
The evidence shows that personal injury claims are, in fact, falling. The government’s Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) collects comprehensive statistics for all personal injury claims and provides detailed statistics on just how the claims add up. Looking at the number of personal injury claims overall, there has been a 3% reduction since 2011 – with claims falling from 1.041 million to 1.016 million for this year. Motor or road traffic accident (RTA) claims – an area often sensationalised –have fallen by 7% since this time three years ago from 828,000 to 773,000. Within RTA the most demonised injury type is often whiplash, yet this category has fallen by nearly a third in the past four years. These statistics hardly point to...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagestock
Clause 56? Fundamentally Incompatible, I Say (and By The Way, the Supreme Court Agrees) - Steven Akerman, Brian Barr Solicitors
Sorry this article is temporarily unavailable.
More Articles...
- PI Practitioner, February 2015
- Loss of Earnings in a Case Where the Claimant Was a Child When Injured - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
- Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: Damages and Costs - Harry Trusted, Outer Temple Chambers
- Rehab Experts and Catastrophic Brain Injury - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
![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)
