News Category 3
Kill the Conversation, Not an Innocent Person - Laura Reaney, Spencers Solicitors
04/11/16. This is one subject that I can honestly say makes me feel very angry. I drive on our roads everyday and have done for many years now. Each time I do, I see at least one driver using a mobile phone whilst behind the wheel. Over the years, this practice has increased dramatically, probably due to the fact we now use our mobile phones much more than we ever used to, in particular for the internet and social media. This is despite the introduction of criminal sanctions for those caught doing it.
Everywhere you look nowadays people have a mobile phone practically glued to their hand. Using a mobile phone whilst driving a motor vehicle is a lethal, high risk combination with potentially tragic and life changing consequences. I wouldn’t even consider doing it because to me it’s common sense, so why do others continue to ignore the dangers and put people’s lives at risk?
There has been so much in the press recently about innocent people becoming victims of mobile phone users behind the wheel. Why do these people never learn? Why do they not stop for a moment and realise how much of a distraction their mobile phone is and how much of a risk they are taking when using it whilst driving.
I am sure it makes many people angry, but despite all the publicity showing us the number of serious or fatal accidents that occur due to the use of a mobile phone whilst driving, people continue to do it.
Using a phone at the wheel increases the risk of a crash four fold.
Reaction times for drivers using a phone are around 50% slower than when driving normally.
Even careful drivers who are distracted by a phone call or text message can be affected because that split second lapse in concentration can be fatal. More and more accidents are happening on our roads due to drivers being distracted by their phones. As soon as a driver answers a call or looks at their phone to text or read a message their concentration is immediately affected.
Do you really want to live with the guilt of causing a serious or even fatal crash because of that split second decision to use your phone?
The advice given by the ‘Think’ campaign, run by the Department of Transport (www.think.direct.gov.uk), is:-
-
DON’T MAKE OR ANSWER CALLS OR TEXT WHILST DRIVING
-
PULL OVER SAFELY AND PARK UP BEFORE USING YOUR MOBILE
-
DON’T CALL OTHER PEOPLE IF YOU KNOW THEY’RE DRIVING
I recently read the article about the cyclist from Hampshire, Lee Martin, who was killed by a van driver using his mobile phone in 2015. I was even more shocked to read that the driver had been allowed to continue driving despite six previous convictions for using a phone at the wheel. I also read about the lorry driver who was distracted opening a text message and crashed into an off-duty police officer’s car in June 2014. Sadly the police officer was killed. The lorry driver was recently jailed for 6 years.
Why not wait until you have stopped driving before opening up a text message or answering a call? Is this just not common sense? That split second of distraction is enough to cause a serious accident or kill someone.
Also in the news this week was the tragic story of Tracy Houghton, her 2 sons and her partner’s daughter, who were all killed in August this year after being hit by a lorry driver using his phone. While sitting at home on Monday scrolling down my news feed on Facebook the article popped up. The lorry driver, Tomasz Kroker was sentenced to 10 years in prison for making the decision to use his mobile while driving and therefore turning his lorry into a “lethal weapon”. Within the article there was a police video clip showing footage from the dash-cam in Mr Kroker’s lorry. I knew if I pressed ‘play’ I would see something horrific. I kept hovering my finger over the screen debating whether or not to watch the clip and I decided I would. It made me feel very angry towards the lorry driver and also very sad and emotional when I thought about all the innocent people who had been involved in the accident, the ones who had sadly lost their lives and the affect this will have on their families forever.
Watching the footage was a real reminder of exactly why I want to raise more awareness about the serious consequences of using a mobile phone while driving. If you are guilty of doing this then I urge you to watch the clip because I can promise you won’t ever do it again.
Interestingly, there has been a recent announcement from the Government that drivers caught using phones will face double points and fines. Offenders will receive 6 points and face a fine of £200 as opposed to the current 3 points and a £100 fine. In my opinion this still isn’t a tough enough penalty to stop offenders and won’t deter them from continuing to use their phone behind the wheel. Personally I think the only way to try and make people realise the dangers is to put them on an immediate ban, just like you would a drink driver. At present almost half of drivers convicted of killing are not jailed at all and the average prison sentence is less than 4 years. I know following the survey carried out by ‘Brake’, the road safety charity (www.brake.org.uk) earlier this year the majority of people called for tougher prison sentencing.
These heartbreaking real life stories are a reminder for all road users that every single driver out there has a responsibility for their own actions when behind the wheel. Doing the job I do in our Serious Injury Department here at Spencers Solicitors, I have seen first-hand what devastating consequences using a mobile phone behind the wheel can have on someone’s life and their families.
‘Brake’ have a link on their website to sign a ‘Justice for Victims’ petition to strengthen sentencing for criminal drivers who kill or cause serious injuries. The more people who sign, the more chance there is of achieving positive change to the criminal driving laws and sentencing.
What are your thoughts on the current penalty for people being sentenced for this and what do you consider is the appropriate penalty?
Laura Reaney
Litigator
Spencers Solicitors
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment: High Court Upholds Public Policy Defence - Helen Coates, DWF
03/11/16. Helen Coates, who acted for the successful appellant in Laserpoint Ltd v Prime Minister of Malta & Others, looks at this rare example of the High Court in England upholding the public policy defence to prevent enforcement of a judgment of a court in another EU member state.
Laserpoint had appealed against registration in England & Wales of a judgment of a Maltese court which had held Laserpoint jointly liable for fire damage at a conference centre in Malta in 1987, on the basis it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to recognise the judgment. The High Court, allowing the appeal, held that this was an exceptional case where Laserpoint had been denied a fair trial by reason of, amongst other things, inordinate delay in the completion of the Maltese proceedings and failure of the court appointed curator to establish contact with Laserpoint and obtain instructions.
Background
In March 1987, the appellant, Laserpoint Ltd (‘Laserpoint’) had been preparing a laser lighting display for a vehicle launch at a conference centre in Malta. A fire broke out, causing extensive damage to the conference centre.
The respondents, being the Prime Minister of Malta and others, issued proceedings in Malta in April 1987 alleging a laser had caused the fire and claimed damages in excess of €6m. On 5 May 1987, a copy of the writ was sent to Laserpoint at its registered address in London. Laserpoint had by then changed its registered address, but Companies House did not alter the Register until 18 May. Laserpoint claimed not to have received the writ or to have been aware of the proceedings against it. The Maltese court appointed curators (legal representatives) for Laserpoint as it was not represented in Malta. Laserpoint was dissolved in 1997. On at least two occasions (in 2001 and 2003), the curator informed the Maltese court of that fact. The curator then ceased to act for Laserpoint from around 2004 but the Maltese proceedings resumed in 2007 after a period of inactivity. With no attempt having been made to contact Laserpoint prior to judgment being entered, judgment was given by the First Civil Court of Malta in January 2013 in which Laserpoint and the organiser of the vehicle launch were held jointly and severally liable to pay damages in excess of €3.3m...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/okanmetin
Qualified One Way Costs Shifting and CPR 36 - Matthew Rose, Clarion Solicitors
31/10/16. Following the introduction of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS), parties have begun seeking to find ways to try to recover their costs where they are not, on the face of it, recoverable. One of the methods currently being tried is to make a CPR 36 offer on the basis that beating a CPR 36 offer will entitle the defendant to all of its costs, assessed on the standard basis.
Background
After the event insurance (ATE) became recoverable inter partes on assessment of costs as a result of the introduction of section 29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. This section was introduced following the Access to Justice Report (published on 26 July 1996) in which Lord Woolf identified that litigation was ‘…too expensive… and too unequal: there is a lack of equality between the powerful, wealthy litigant and the under resourced litigant’, and furthermore expressed concern over the level of public expenditure on litigation. This resulted in a shift to a publically funded justice system, to a system in which the costs of litigation were funded by the litigants themselves...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/hocus-focus
Knocked Down in Greece: EU Law, Brexit, and Broken Legs - Ross Beaton, Lamb Chambers
25/10/16. Hardly a day goes by without another story about how hard it will be for Britain to extricate itself from the EU. What will happen to banking regulations? What about immigration? Beyond the marquee issues, though, the questions go much further. Whoever thought that compensation schemes for accidents involving uninsured drivers would be affected? That they will be is clear from Moreno v MIB [2016] UKSC 52. As the Court commented, while a British person injured by an uninsured driver in Greece, as in this case, now has a straightforward mechanism to claim, it was not ever thus – and “with British exit from the Union, this will, no doubt, be one of the many current arrangements requiring thought” – Lord Mance at [3].
Ms Moreno, a UK resident, was on holiday in Greece when she was run down by a Greek driver, who had no insurance and apparently no driving licence at all. The accident was serious, and Ms Moreno lost her leg. She returned to the UK, and sought to bring a substantial claim, including loss of earnings. Under EU law, given direct effect in the UK, she could do this fairly simply.
The mechanics were as follows. If someone is injured in an RTA elsewhere in the EU, EU regulations (the Sixth Directive 2009/103/EC, to be precise), provides that they can sue the uninsured drivers’ bureau in their own member state, which can recover from the equivalent bureau in the state where the accident took place, which bureau then has a subrogated claim against the uninsured driver. This process used to be significantly more cumbersome than it is today, and the ability of victims to recover damages has been...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
What Does Brexit Mean for Motor Insurance? - Malcolm Johnson, BL Claims Solicitors
24/10/16. Brexit means legal changes – and one area of substantial change will be the rights of injured motorists against the Motor Insurers Bureau.
The European Union has issued six Motor Insurance Directives since 1972. The effect of these Directives is to harmonise the minimum standards for motor insurance across Europe. This means that a motorist from the UK can drive across the European Union knowing that his insurance will be legal in all the Member States. Motorists are advised to "up" their insurance when they drive abroad, but the point is that everyone has the same minimum rights.
Secondly the European Directives have, over the years dramatically improved the rights of people hit by uninsured and untraced drivers. The present scheme in this country for compensating these people consists of a set of Agreements between the insurance industry and the UK government. Over the years, challenges to those Agreements in our courts and the European Court of Justice have meant that victims' rights have been enhanced.
For instance, if you were a child victim of an untraced driver, you had to bring your claim within three years of the accident regardless of the fact that if you were suing a traced driver, limitation only began to run against you from your 18th birthday. That changed after the Court of Appeal decision in Byrne (A Minor) v The Motor Insurers Bureau and the Secretary Of State for Transport [2008] EWCA Civ 574...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
More Articles...
- What Effect Will Brexit Have on Health and Safety at Work? - Mike Kemp, Thorntons
- 'Litigation Is Not a War or Even a Game': Recent Decision Is a Timely Reminder for Parties to Put Their 'Cards on the Table' - Andrew Cullen, Barrister
- The Cost of Admissions - Luke Ashby, Kings Bench Chambers
- Sorry: Is It the Hardest Word? - Nicola Edgar, Morton Fraser Lawyers
![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)
