|
PERSONAL INJURY
Civil Evidence: Expert/Factual Evidence
Kirkman v Euro Exide Corporation, CA (Civ Div) 25/1/2007
A judge had erred in refusing to admit the evidence of a surgeon who had treated the claimant in a personal injury action, on the basis that to admit the evidence would have exceeded a limit on expert witnesses allowed at trial, as his statement was merely evidence of fact about what he himself would have done in hypothetical circumstances and not an expert opinion on what most competent surgeons would have done in the same situation.
Limitation Act 1980, S. 14(2)
McCoubrey v Ministry of Defence, CA (Civ Div) 24/1/2007
The proper approach to the question raised by the Limitation Act 1980 s.14(2) in relation to a claimant seeking to bring a personal injury claim outside the three-year period specified in s.11(4)(a) was to consider the reaction to the injury, as opposed to its possible consequences, of a reasonable person in the objective circumstances of the actual claimant, while disregarding his actual personal attributes.
Vicarious Liability
Mountford v Newlands School & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 24/1/2007
A school was vicariously liable in circumstances where a member of staff had selected a boy, who was well over the age group for the match, to play on a junior rugby team and that boy's superior size, weight and maturity had contributed to an opposing player being injured.
Mesothelioma – Foreseeability of Injury
Pinder v Cape Plc, High Ct, 20/12/2006
The defendant company were not liable in negligence to the claimant, who had contracted mesothelioma as a result of playing in asbestos waste deposited by the company at a local tip in the 1950s, in circumstances where the claimant was not exposed to a level of asbestos which at that time would have been reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause him injury and he did not fall within the category of person that the defendant ought reasonably to have had in mind.
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE
The ’10 minute rule’
Purver v Winchester & Eastleigh Healthcare NH Trust, High Ct, 18/1/2007
The failure to deliver the claimant within 10 minutes of severe oxygen deprivation occurring just prior to birth had been negligent, and had caused the claimant's brain damage and disability, thus entitling him to compensation.
HEALTH & SAFETY AT WORK
Stress at Work
Hiles v South Gloucestershire NHS Primary Care Trust, High Ct, 20/12/2006
An employer was in breach of its duty to its employee to take reasonable care to avoid injuring her health where it had become aware that her difficulties at work were having an adverse effect on her mental health, but had taken no steps to help her.
Employee’s lack of care for own safety
Sharp v Elnaugh & Sons Ltd, CC (Colchester) 4/12/2006
On the evidence, an employer was not liable for personal injuries sustained by an employee who had fallen some height from a ladder in the course of his work as an electrician; the employee was entirely at fault in climbing the ladder while no one was present to foot it or secure it in position.
DAMAGES
Cost of Reinstatement
Aerospace Publishing Ltd & Anr v Thames Water Utilities Ltd, CA (Civ Div) 11/1/2007; (2007) NPC 5; Times, January 22, 2007
Where a publishing company's archive of historic aviation material had been damaged by flooding and the company intended to reinstate the archive and it was reasonable to do so, the correct measure of damages was the cost of reinstatement.
Birth Injuries – Lump sum & RPI-linked periodical payments
ES v Chesterfield NHS Trust, High Ct, 27/11/2006
The claimant, a 12-year-old girl, received a lump sum payment of £1,850,000 plus periodical payments linked to the Retail Price Index for the brain injuries sustained during her birth in November 1994. The claimant suffered from dystonic athetoid cerebral palsy.
INSURANCE
Road Traffic Accident
Bee v Jenson, High Ct, 21/12/2006; Times, January 16, 2007
Where a replacement vehicle had been supplied to an insured driver through a company nominated by his insurers, after his car had been damaged in a road traffic accident, there was nothing in the principles of subrogation or in the hire agreement which prevented the driver from recovering the full cost of hiring the replacement vehicle given that the rate of hire was reasonable.
Summary Judgment
English & Americal Insurance Co Ltd v AXA Re SA, High Ct (Comm) 20/12/2006
Summary judgment was granted to an insurer against a reinsurer on grounds that the insurer's settlement with the assured was, in law, the settlement of a claim that fell within the risks covered by the reinsurance contracts. The insurer was able to rely on purported "without prejudice" letters from the reinsurer as evidence that the reinsurer had no defence to a claim up to the sum specified therein.
HEALTH
GMC Proceedings
R v General Medical Council & Anr, High Ct (Admin) 21/12/2006; Times, January 12, 2007
In the circumstances, the GMC had not owed a duty of fairness to the Singapore Medical Council in deciding not to pursue a charge against a GMC-registered doctor who had been found guilty of professional misconduct in Singapore.
Confidentiality Assurances not absolute
Wakefield v Channel Four Television Corporation & Ors, High Ct, 21/12/2006
Assurances of confidentiality of medical records given to patients by the General Medical Council when it was investigating serious criticisms of a doctor could not be regarded as absolute, since, as well as being subject to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and their implementation by the court, the assurances might be subject to overriding requirements that other considerations be given priority, the matter being determined by where the interests of justice lay.
|
