This site uses cookies.

News Category 3

PI Practitioner, October 2013

16/10/13. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.

Accidents at work

The Defence in Ginty v Belmont Building Suppliers Ltd and Boyle v Kodak

Ginty v Belmont Building Suppliers Ltd [1959] 1 All ER 414

The Claimant was replacing asbestos when he fell through a roof. The Defendant employer had instructed the Claimant to...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Vicarious Liability: The Times, They Are a-Changing - Thea Wilson, 12 King's Bench Walk

15/10/13.[Vicarious liability] is not a static concept and has adjusted over the centuries to provide just solutions to the challenges of changing times. And times are still a-changing … We need to adapt to the current demands.” - E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity and another per Ward LJ.

Introduction

Vicarious liability is a long-established doctrine of English law; dating back at least as far as the seventeenth century. The doctrine was “founded in policy rather than conceptualistic reasoning” and essentially creates strict liability of employers for their employees’ acts because for policy reasons it is considered right to impose liability. As with many areas of the common law, the doctrine has always been in a state of evolution, but this has particularly been the case over recent years.

There are essentially two tests to be considered in a case involving vicarious liability. First, whether the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor is...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/liveostockimages

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Does the Thing Ever Speak for Itself in Medical Claims? - Dr Jock Mackenzie, Anthony Gold Solicitors

14//10/13. Two cases in the last year have again explored the concept of res ipsa loquitur, the Latin maxim literally meaning “the thing speaks for itself”, and its applicability in medical negligence cases. The maxim first appears to have arisen in reported cases in Byrne v Boadle(1863) 9 LT 450, a case in which a barrel of flour from a warehouse hit the plaintiff as he was walking by. Its classic exposition was 4 years later in...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/STEFANOLUNARDI

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

The Changing Face of a Law Firm - Jeanette Aspinall, Fletchers Solicitors

09/10/13. When the delayed Jackson reforms finally came into effect in April this year, firms across the UK braced for the worst. Six months on, Jeanette Aspinall, head of medical negligence at Fletchers Solicitors, reveals an industry in flux and how the changes have led to innovation.

Earlier this year, redundancies, corporate mergers, even bankruptcy felt imminent for many. Indeed, since the changes to civil litigation were introduced under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, both...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/sodafish

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Catastrophic Injury Claims Without Recourse to the Courts - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers

03/10/13. This may sound pathetic, but the best read I've had in a long time is the 2013 Jackson ADR Handbook! In his Foreword, Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, says: “…. this book should be as tried and trusted as the White Book and the Green Book.”. I think that ADR may represent a revolution which is about to happen in personal injury litigation; I believe that within five years we will habitually conduct significant personal injury claims without any recourse to the courts.

We've had supposed revolutions before, but they have come to nothing; in my world, the Woolf reforms have probably not added anything of value. This could be different, though. If the climate amongst thinking personal injury lawyers is right, we will all embrace an opportunity which reflects, to some extent, what has been happening...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/webphotographeer

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.