The Nuts and Bolts of Workplace Injury Rights

Featured Post

We recently talked about what you should do if you find yourself injured at work. In the minutes and hours that follow your injury, there are a number of things you must make sure get accomplished. These include documenting the accident and speaking with a qualified legal representative. It’s good to prepare to do these things before you ever get injured, in fact. Being prepared can make terrible situations like these go much more smoothly.

But there is another bit of knowledge that will be helpful if you ever find yourself injured on the job. There are certain pieces of legislation that guarantee your rights, should you ever be hurt while working for an employer. If you know your rights, you’ll be a lot more certain of getting beneficial resolutions to your workplace injury claim. We’ll briefly cover a couple of these specific rights in the following. It’s important to note that there is a lot of diversity from state to state when it comes to workplace injury laws. The following are nationwide characteristics that you can generally rely upon wherever you happen to be injured at work, despite the specific laws found in your state.

• You always have a right to leave work to see a doctor for treatment of your injury.
• You have the right to put forward a formal claim about your illness or injury. Your case will be seen in a workers’ compensation court or an industrial court run by the state.
• If you go to the hospital after an injury and are released, you have the right to go back to work. You can’t be sent home.
• If you are so badly hurt or ill that you can’t go to work, regardless of the duration, you have the right to disability compensation of some kind. This will vary a lot state to state, but there will always be some kind of compensation available to you.
• You can appeal an employer’s decision regarding your worker’s compensation claim. You can also appeal the ruling of the compensation court.
• You have a right to legal counsel and representation throughout every step of the injury claim, compensation, and appeal process.

There are some states that are more generous towards injured claimants than others. It’s important for you to understand the general political climate of your state with regard to workers comp claims. This is especially true if you have a risky job, one where you come in contact with sick people, or if you perform any kind of manual labor. It is useful for every American worker to be equipped with this information.

It is also helpful to know to whom these rules do not necessarily apply. If you are self employed or are marginally employed through various non-traditional means, you won’t be able to hang your hat on any of these rights. If you are likely to be injured at your work in a role such as this, it is worth your while to consult with an injury lawyer ahead of time to understand your specific rights in the event of an injury.

We hope this helps, and that you will enjoy many injury-free years at work!

How to Act in Your Best Interests If You Are Injured at Work

Featured Post

One of the worst things that can happen to a person is to be injured at work. Even though there are rights and laws in place to put you in the best possible place during this trying time, these laws won’t act for you. It’s important to do everything you can to fight for yourself. Here are a few ways to get through a workplace injury with the best possible outcome.

1) Immediately Talk to HR and File a Claim. A Human Resources officer should be in touch with you as soon as you are hurt. If this doesn’t happen, contact them. When contacting them, ask to file a claim and make sure you investigate the matter to your heart’s content, knowing that they’ve told you everything you need to know to make your case. Turn in documents immediately, getting help if you are incapacitated or hospitalized. Don’t delay. If your business is small and without dedicated HR, it’s important to go one step further.

2) If You are Injured on the Job, Get a Solicitor. No matter who you are, but especially if your employer doesn’t have an HR team to help you file your claim, you need legal representation on your side. When you are injured, you are likely not at your best. You might be on pain meds. You might be away from home for long periods of time. You may see your income delayed. A solicitor can help put everything right and get you the restitution that you need. It is good to contact a solicitor as soon as you are hurt. Sometimes employers have been known to act in their interests, rather than in the interests of an employee. If you solicitor doesn’t specialize in workplace injury, ask them for a recommendation of a colleague who does. Don’t stop until you are satisfied that you have good counsel.

3) Follow Up With Your Claim. It is important that you don’t forget about managing your claim. When you are injured, take pictures of the injury, the job site where it happened, and get signatures from witnesses. When you are hospitalized, similarly document that. Keep track of expenses and lost work time. When the claim is filed, call daily about its progress to all relevant parties. An accident at work claim takes time to process, but you can likely accelerate it by keeping track of this yourself and having your solicitor help too.

Many people who get injured at work find that when all is said and done, they missed out on the aid that they were due. This is a terrible outcome, especially for people who may experience ongoing health difficulties following the initial injury, as well as earning tumult. To put yourself in the best position following workplace injury, it is important to be vigilant and to fight for yourself. This is not to say that representation shouldn’t be one of your first moves; it should. But you need to make sure they you are aware of how things are progressing, so that your rights are recognized.

Legal Grey Areas: where it helps to have a lawyer

Guest Post
Most people don’t have a lawyer. Some people skate through life without ever getting involved, one way or another, with legal trouble. But these folks are actually in the minority. In reality, there are dozens of common events that draw normal, honest people into the courtroom. These things are unavoidable, and include car accidents, medical malpractice, and other regrettable events that make Oregon residents need an expert in Oregon law. Of course, not everybody is from Oregon, but I say this to point out that every legal scene is different. Different states have different laws, various ways they try and prosecute different offences. If something goes wrong in your life, you’ll need more than a simple Google search. A committed lawyer will be able to give you personalized advice and counsel, getting you the justice that you deserve, and fast.

But sometimes, it’s hard to know whether you need a lawyer or not. Maybe an offense has taken place, or then again, maybe it’s not worth the trouble. I’m here to tell you that there is no virtue in letting yourself be hurt or exploited without taking advantage of the services of a qualified lawyer. Let’s take the case of medical malpractice, for instance. If you have suffered a long, painful recovery because of a medical mistake, you need to report it and receive the restitution that you deserve. This is because it’s not just you out there. Lots of people are hurt by medical malpractice every year, and unless these cases are reported and paid for, legislation and policy isn’t going to exist for the good of regular people like you. By letting careless doctors get away with mistakes, you are becoming a part of the problem, perpetuating medical carelessness. It’s grey areas like these where you need to talk to a lawyer, to help you understand the big picture and get you the justice that you deserve. Here are a few examples.

1) Nursing Home Neglect. It can be a sad thing to have an elder person in your life have to go to a nursing home. This is a person who has been strong for most of your life, but who has gradually weakened to the point where they can no longer care for themselves properly. In some cases, older people are neglected or even abused in nursing home settings. These situations are in the minority, but they do occur, leaving these older folks hurt and vulnerable. But it’s hard to know, as an outsider, if this is what is occurring. Even if you are a son or daughter of one of these people, you aren’t around the see these events happen, and staff may explain away the telltale signs. You also won’t know what to look for. This is where Oregon Personal Injury Lawyers are just what you need. They’ve got experience in the field. They’ve seen these cases hundreds of times, and they can tell you exactly what you need to know in order to pursue justice.

2) Food Poisoning. All of us, at one time or another, have gotten sick from some food we had at a restaurant. Most of us would want to shrug it off, but the fact is that most food poisoning incidents result from poor sanitation and food handling standards. By failing to report a case like this, you may be perpetuating wrongdoing at these restaurants leaving other people vulnerable. You are also entitled to restitution for pain and suffering, as well as time spent away from work.

As you can see, there are a variety of situations where bad things happen, but you may not know whether or not to pursue legal action. In cases like this an experienced Oregon lawyer may be exactly what you need, to help you navigate the trying legal waters before you.

Know the Risks of Cheap Cosmetic Surgery while Travelling Abroad

Guest Post

So you’ve decided you want cosmetic surgery, or are at least seriously considering it. We imagine you’ve also heard about the op-and-holiday packages that companies promise across the world. It’s true that you can potentially undergo cosmetic surgery at a lower price abroad, but like most things, you often get what you pay for.

Of course, there are highly-skilled plastic surgeons wherever you are in the world, but if you’re looking for cheap deals, it’s likely that you’ll go under the knife in a country where the rules and guidelines aren’t very strict.

Safer in the UK?
Although not every surgical operation is going to be entirely risk-free, if complications arise in the UK, the surgeon is bound by a duty of care to provide follow-up treatments. However, abroad, sometimes what you get is what you get. In the UK, clinics won’t often have a representative that you can go to. However, as documented by this Wrexham based solicitor, in an incident regarding a crooked nose, they said that ‘you may gain compensation if it is possible to reveal that the doctor did something wrong which a competent doctor would have done.’

Holiday!
Beware of the holiday sell. Often, people are suckered into deals where they never meet the surgeon and receive professional advice before the op. You should want to see some of his or her previous work. Cosmetic surgery is a very serious business and should be treated as such. Bear in mind that you may be able to have a holiday before your surgery, but after, you won’t be allowed to drink, lie in the sun, or partake in energetic activities (and you probably won’t want to either).

Aftercare
It’s so important that you can have a follow-up appointment and extra treatment. You need to have all this worked out before you leave the country because it’s unlikely that you’ll receive the attention you need, when you’re back home. If there is a serious problem, you might have to travel back to have it fixed! Or cough up for a UK plastic surgeon. After all that expenditure, you might have saved money by getting cosmetic surgery in the UK to begin with!

Minimise The Risks
This isn’t something you should do on a whim. Research the procedure for a very long time before you consider doing it. You have to meet your surgeon and make sure that he or she is the right one for you. Make sure they are fully registered and highly recommended.

Find out how cosmetic surgery is regulated in the country you plan to visit and ascertain how well these standards are enforced. Really, your surgeon should be able to speak English well, so you can understand their advice and they can respond to your concerns and questions.

Think Of The Worst
Things may go very wrong! This is something you have to face up to and you must consider the risks involved. What kind of insurance arrangements does the clinic have? Will your travel insurance cover any of this? It really is worth getting some straight advice legally and medically in this country, before you consider going abroad for cosmetic surgery.

Your rights if you’re injured in a public place

Guest PostThe owner, manager or proprietor of a public place is legally obliged to ensure that the place, when it is accessible by the public, is safe and free from risk. This duty of care requires there to be a certain level of cleanliness, tidiness and warning of potential hazards.

What is defined as a public place?
Supermarkets, parks, pubs, schools, etc. all are designated public places. Essentially, any person that allows members of the public onto their premises has a duty of care to take reasonable responsibility for their safety whilst on their premises.

Even public footpaths and roads are considered public places, as they are owned, managed and maintained by the council. Hence, if an accident is the fault of a poorly maintained footpath, it is the council’s responsibility, or lack of duty of care.

All owners or management of public places are expected to have public liability insurance. If compensation is sought, much like a car insurance policy, funds are paid from the insurer to the victim.

The thin line between liability
It is often difficult to know whether you’re in a public place. Is that footpath council owned, or is it a private property? Is the car park part of the supermarket or are they only liable when shopping inside the store, and what about the entrances and doorways? Plenty of accidents take place on escalators, at doors, emergency exits or on stairwells, so is the manager liable?

In the legal sense of the term, a public place is anywhere which is privately or publically owned, and, either by direct, expressed or implied invitation is accessible by the public. On the other hand, places which are used exclusively by individuals or groups for personal purposes are not defined as public places.

The importance of signs
Hazards in public places are unavoidable; people will always spill things, move items and generally cause dangerous situations for other visitors. However, it is how the management deals with such a situation which can cause more of an issue. We’ve all noticed ‘caution wet floor’ signs and similar warnings when out and about, but these are vital to ensure the management is safe from liability should an accident happen. Any spillage should be cleaned and warned of, similar with debris being removed promptly and all hazards being addressed. That way, the general public is aware of, and will avoid, possible accidents.

Many accident claims are down to the fact that the management of a public space has not taken sufficient steps to warn the public of a hazard.

Your right to make a claim
If you were harmed in a public place, in an accident which was no fault of your own, you’re entitled to make a claim for compensation. An owner’s public liability insurance is in place to deal with such claims. A good solicitor will help you to decide whether it was a public place and whether you’re eligible to claim, so after an injury it helps to detail as much information as possible.

A court case, and any financial settlement received by the victim, will help to address the serious issues poor health and safety in a public place can cause. Often, slips, trips and falls cause terrible injuries and further implications for an individual, for example, being unable to work for a long time, extensive rehabilitation or having to rely on family and carers to support the home and family. Compensation will help considerably to cover these costs, leaving a victim free to recover at their own pace.

Slippery slope for Bristol law students

The University of Bristol’s law school is housed in the Wills Memorial Building which is the large castle-like building at the top of the hill in the picture.  Put another way, it’s perfectly positioned for students to sprint out of lectures and slalom their way down a water slide once lectures are over for the day.

Why couldn’t studying law be more like that when I was a student, eh? 

When the slide is set up for a day (yes, that’s all!) in the summer, let’s hope the road is properly closed to traffic.  I don’t want to hear of law students studying tort having their studies bolstered by first hand experiences of negligence claims!  Lucky that the Bristol Royal Infirmary is just down the road.

Drunk woman nearly killed stone dead

(As distinct from being killed stone alive.)

From BBC News 20/03/14:

A Londonderry woman, who was captured on camera being left in a bus lay-by by two police officers while incapacitated, has called for the officers to be sacked.

Bridget Mongan, 23, admits being drunk at the time, but said the officers should have left her on the pavement.

"My boyfriend was arrested and I got a bit upset," said Ms Mongan.

"I could have been killed stone dead.

Because being killed can result in you being left in some other condition, of course. Ahem.

"I don't remember how I ended up lying on the road. I don't remember a whole lot," she added.

That stands to reason, I guess.

Assuming the officers did in fact leave Mongan floundering around in a drunken stupor at a bus stop, I’m surprised they’d be willing to take the risk. As well as potentially committing an offence under the Irish equivalent of the Road Traffic Act by causing danger to other road users, it’s also very likely that the officers would be exposing themselves (and their employers) to civil liability through claims for negligence.

Handcuffing her to a lamppost while she ‘slept it off’ would have been a much safer bet.

School closures during snow

From Popsci.com 22/01/14:

When a storm is brewing and the streets are soon to be rendered useless by mounds of snow, there's really only one thing running through every student's mind: please let tomorrow be a snow day. Now there's science to back up canceling [sic] school due to nasty weather. According to a study by Harvard Kennedy School assistant professor Joshua Goodman, keeping the school doors open can actually hurt learning more than a snow day closure.

The explanation for this, according to the article, is as follows. When a school remains open during a period of heavy snow, a lot of parents keep their children at home, whereas others might make it in to class. That throws the pupils’ progress out of sync, often resulting in the children who didn’t attend school during the snowy period missing out relative to their peers. However, where schools take the decision to close because of snow, substitute days are often added to the school calendar to make up for the missed time. (Well – they do in the US apparently.) That keeps classes in sync and ensures the world is a happy, shiny place.

Not convinced?

More pragmatically, there are a lot of other reasons why it might be better for schools to admit defeat during inclement weather and close for the day rather than trying to soldier on with skeleton classes. In most areas of the UK where snow is a rarity rather than a predictable yearly battle, pupils won’t be concentrating on schoolwork when there’s tobogganing to be done or snowmen to build outside. I remember from my school days that the onset of snow during a maths lesson turned into a free-for-all at the windows. Somehow algebra can’t compete with the prospect of playing in the snow.

What’s more, taking the decision to close a school when the weather dictates it really isn’t safe to open avoids all of those other problems, too. You know, like children slipping and injuring themselves in playgrounds resembling ice rinks. Then there’s the dangerous chaos that ensues from mums and dads doing the school run in a hurry in deep snow. Cars, small children and ice are a dangerous combination.

And head teachers have got their blood pressure to think about, after all.

Are personal injury claimants vulnerable to “fickle” insurers?

Guest PostA recent case in which an insurer attempted to make changes to a claim for a road traffic accident based on a change of heart on admission of liability has highlighted how vulnerable claimants can be to the whims of insurers.

In many cases claimants will deal with a number of different representatives from their insurance provider, making them exposed to changes in personal opinion – one insurer may want to approach the claim in one way, but another individual at the same company may have a very different view, and if they become the lead representative on the case it can cause real issues for claimants.

In the case mentioned above a recent applications to resile from an admission of liability was rejected by the court. The application was rejected for many reasons including the fact that no new evidence had come to light and the main crux of the accident was that liability had merely been mistakenly admitted.

As well as this there was no evidence to suggest that a claimant had been deliberately misleading, and as the claimant’s accident occurred more than three years ago – the standard time limit for making a claim – they would be left unable to claim the compensation they are entitled to should the claim in progress suddenly change track.

The judge in the case ruled in favour of the claimant and agreed that should the claim be stopped it would leave the claimant in less than ideal position.

This was clearly the right decision and it is positive to see the legal system veering on the side of claimants, who are the victims. The case also shows that claimants can be at the mercy of insurance firms – their case may be moved from person to person, and this could change its focus considerably.

More must be done to ensure that claimants are protected, and that the original focus and drive of the case remains in place regardless of who ends up handling the case. It is extremely unfair on claimants when insurers attempt to change their mind with no new evidence. It can happen when a file changes hands within an insurer and a new file handler takes a more bullish approach, for example.

McHale & Co is a full service law firm based in Altrincham, Cheshire, with expertise in family law, criminal defence, civil litigation, motoring offences and business crime.

It’ll be deadly this Christmas…

From This Week 24/12/13:

True fact: You are more likely to die on Christmas, the day after Christmas [commonly known as Boxing Day in good ol’ Blighty], or New Year's Day than pretty much any other day of the year.

Like ugly sweaters and bizarre fruitcakes, the spike in the fatality rate has become something of a yuletide tradition.

I’m not sure that bizarre fruitcakes are one of the symbols most associated with Christmas, to be honest, but let’s not worry about that now.

Indeed, the morbid trend appears to have held consistent since at least the 1970s, per a new CNN report. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93 percent of all Christmastime deaths are due to natural causes — heart attacks, respiratory diseases, digestive problems, and the like.

While examining U.S. death certificates, UC San Diego sociologist David P. Phillips noticed that the paperwork seemed to pile up every year around the holidays. So he and his team pored over three decades' worth of death certificates and emergency room literature to try and figure out if the dreaded Christmas death spike was the real deal. Their conclusion: "There are holiday spikes for most major disease groups and for all demographic groups." (One noticeable exceptions: Children, who don't see a spike.)

Phillips and his team have a few theories why. Stress could certainly have something to do with it; the same with cold weather. One of the more frightening possibilities, of course, could simply be that hospitals are understaffed around the holidays, when health-care professionals are taking time off like everybody else to be with loved ones.

Coupled with that, the medical staff that are working over the Christmas period are likely to be stressed, tired and not at their best. It’s already widely known that, statistically, you’re more likely to die if you’re admitted to hospital on a weekend compared with a weekday, so this spike in mortality rates during the festive season isn’t really that surprising. But it’s not all bad news: medical negligence lawyers know that as well as bringing gifts at Christmas, Santa also brings plenty of work for the new year!

Besides all that, it’s not difficult to see why Christmas is such a dangerous time of the year. Risks lurk round every corner, accidents are aplenty and injuries inevitably ensue. There tends to be snow and ice underfoot (or flood waters of biblical proportions if recent Christmases in the UK are anything to go by), feasting to be done (which usually means burn injuries from hot cooking fat, scalds from overladen stoves and undercooked turkeys full of nasty e-coli just waiting to get you). There are Christmas decorations to trip up on, trees to topple over and squish you, and fairy lights, well past their prime, waiting to electrocute whichever unsuspecting victim ventures near. There are nuts and sweets to choke on (making it all the more surprising that children do not feature statistically as victims over Xmas) and newly-gifted power tools waiting to bite DIY-ers who are desperately out of practice.

And to top it all off, there’s the inevitable gloom of January just round the corner. Where’s all that festive cheer now, I wonder?

But ignore my miserable musings and the gloomy time of year. As the Cooperative food ads will no doubt be spouting soon: relax, Easter is just round the corner.

Personal Injury Compensation Claims – be aware of the time limits or risk losing out

Guest PostIn the UK, there is a general time limit of three years in which a personal injury claim for compensation must be made. If proceedings are not started in a court within this time frame, then the case becomes statute-barred and cannot be pursued.

Usually, the three year timeline starts either from the date of the accident or from the date that the person becomes aware that the injury is linked to the original incident. This is referred to as ‘the date of knowledge’. This ‘date of knowledge’ can be extremely useful for cases that involve exposure to a toxic substance, such as asbestos which may not reveal itself until decades later.

However, there are some variations about when the time limitation is set. For example, in fatal cases, the three year limitation begins from the date of death or from the date the death was linked to the original incident, be it an accident or exposure to a toxic substance. In addition, if a person dies part way through making a claim for compensation, the three year deadline begins from their date of death, enabling their family to continue with the claim if they wish to.

There are special rules too for children and for people being treated under the Mental Health Act (1983). In such cases, the time limit does not begin until their ‘legal incapacity’ is removed. For a child, this is at eighteen years old and for a patient being treated under the Mental Health Act, the date of their discharge. The three year time limit still applies. Therefore rather than having three years from the date of the accident in which to pursue a claim the law states that a ‘child’ has three years from the date of their eighteenth birthday, that being the age of maturity, in which to bring a claim. Their claim, therefore, must have either settled or court proceedings have been issued before the child/adult reaches the age of twenty one. This rule gives the parents or guardians of the injured child a choice, at the time of the accident, as to whether to pursue a claim immediately (and have any compensation awarded to the child placed in a court fund until the child reaches the age of eighteen) or to wait until the child reaches the age of maturity and let them make their own decision as to whether to pursue a claim for compensation for the injuries they sustained as a child.

A peculiar anomaly to this is if an accident occurs on an aircraft. The limitation period in this instance is only two years from the date of the accident.

In order to minimise the risk of your claim being prevented in law from being made due to the statute of limitation it is advisable to seek legal advice from an expert personal injury solicitor as soon as possible after the accident. Similarly, if a child has been injured it would be beneficial for the parents or guardians to talk through the options with a solicitor who specialises in child injury claims so that they are clear about what action they need to take.

For those who have had the misfortune to be in an accident or have been exposed to a toxic substance, it is also a good idea to seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity. In this way the injured party can avoid the risk of becoming statute-barred and have the best chance of making a successful claim for compensation.

Close Thornton Solicitors have a team specialising in personal injury claims. For further information, please contact Shaun Burke on 01325 466461 or email shaun.burke@close-thornton.co.uk

Victim of tragic paddling pool horseplay stunt has claim dismissed

From the Huffington Post 06/12/13:

A student who was left tetraplegic after horseplay in a paddling pool has lost his damages claim against one of the UK's leading drama schools, which he said was to blame for the accident.

Andrew Risk had reached the last day of his second year of a scenic arts degree at Rose Bruford College in Sidcup, south east London, when he took a long run at a large paddling pool filled with water to a depth of about two-and-a-half feet and dived in, hitting his head on the ground.

Mr Risk, 25, […] suffered immediate loss of sensation, was unable to move, and had to be supported by fellow students to enable him to breathe until he could be taken to hospital.

Now in a wheelchair and needing 24-hour care, he claimed his injury in June 2009 was caused by a breach of duty of care or negligence on the part of the college, which denied liability.

Today, Mr Justice Jay said that Mr Risk had not succeeded and, even if he had, he would have found him 75% to blame for the accident. [In short] the college did not owe a particular duty to protect the claimant from the risk he took.

On the facts of the case, [the college] did not assume responsibility for Mr Risk's safety and his accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

Cases like this are always difficult. Indeed, as Mr Justice Jay noted:

"On a human level, I regret the conclusion that I have reached, but to my mind the legal principles are clear and the weight of authority overwhelming."

Utterly tragic.

One question, though: have you ever known a claimant’s surname to be more apt?

‘Spike Away’ vest turns commuters into hazardous porcupines

From the Huffington Post 04/12/13:

Sick of your face being shmooshed into someone's armpit? Your head being used as a book rest? Feeling violated before you've even got into work?

Err, yes, yes and yes.  On a daily basis.

Cramped commuters of the world rejoice, a young designer has come up with the perfect solution.

Siew Ming Cheng has evidently had enough of rush hour on the Singapore subway.

Those space-invading commuters have brushed up against, knocked and pushed her one too many times, and now the young creative is declaring war on space snatchers with special body armour: the Spike Away vest.

Explaining her idea she said: "A quick brainstorming leads to a everyday situation. Trains are usually crowded during peak hours. Everybody will push each other to try and get onto the train.

"How can I protect my personal space? The idea was then conceived. 'What if I wear a vest that is full of spikes?'"

Yikes. That really could have someone’s eye out!  Just look at the reaction of the chap on the left. Pictures really do tell a thousand words.

Plus, wouldn’t it make it tricky to wear back-pack or other shoulder bag?

Quirky though it is, I fear the Spike Away vest may never make it past the ‘proof of concept’ stage. Every time it’s used, the wearer is potentially inviting dozens of personal injury claims being brought against them, not to mention the risk of being dragged off the train or bus head first and given a thorough beating.  Have you seen some of the people travelling on the tube?!?

And whilst it might help to encourage some people to keep their distance, the vest doesn’t appear to offer much protection from opportunistic gropers on the prowl.  ‘Bum grazing’, as I’ve heard it called, is rife on on the underground!

PCSO takes a tumble and sues

From the Metro 29/11/13:

A police community support officer (PCSO) is suing the owner of a derelict school building after she tripped and injured her knee while responding to a report of a break-in.

Pauline Harrison, 53, […] sent a letter to landowner Lightflask Ltd alleging that the firm failed to display warning signs outside the property […].

She says she suffered ‘soft tissue damage’ to her right knee when she fell over the 3ft high wooden fence in 2009 and is also claiming for a £14 prescription and £102 physiotherapy charge.

That’s not a prescription for spectacles, right? Just kidding. But perhaps the biggest question in all this is exactly how a person is able to fall over a 3 foot high fence in the first place. That’s quite an achievement.

Merseyside Police said they did not approve of the claim but that it was a private matter for the individual.

A spokesman for Lightflask Ltd has warned that this could set a dangerous precedent.

‘I don’t think people expect to be sued by somebody working in the police who claims injury in the course of their duties,’ he said.

People rarely expect to be sued, period. But it happens. Whether it should routinely happen in these types of situations brings public policy considerations into play.

‘Surely the nature of the job carries inherent risks and one obviously grows concerned that in this case the claimant is a community support officer and there must be a worry that these support officers may not be trained to the level of a regular officer.

Actually, I’m not sure that’s the point at all. The main point of the story, I think, isn’t so much that it involves a PCSO rather than a fully-fledged PC, but rather that this highlights the fact our emergency services are being increasingly litigious. But how concerned should we be about police officers regularly bringing claims against landowners from slip and trip injuries obtained whilst carrying out their routine duties? How many of these types of claims are succeeding? Is the law sufficiently sophisticated to properly consider the circumstances in which these injuries are occurring so as to give rise to a just result?

The police (and that includes PCSOs) are there to protect the public and enforce law and order. Like all emergency services, they are charged with responding to emergency calls in dangerous and difficult circumstances. Being in the line of danger unfortunately goes with the territory.

What’s more, it’s reasonable to expect police officers, including PCSOs, to be sure-footed, observant and capable of exercising common sense. But the scope of that expectation is necessarily affected by the prevailing circumstances in which that officer finds themselves. Clearly it’s vital for any claim brought by a member of the emergency services relating to an injury suffered whilst on duty to be assessed in the full and proper context in which it occurred. This means keeping the circumstances of their coming onto the land in question very much top of mind.

However, I think the law is already flexible enough to manage these difficult situations. Whilst landowners generally owe people who come onto their property (invited or otherwise) a duty of care to protect them from personal injury, that protection is subject to the rigours of the legal test for negligence. That test essentially considers whether a duty of care is owed to the claimant in the circumstances, whether that duty was breached, whether there was a causal connection between that breach occurring and the injury complained of, and whether the foreseeability of that injury occurring as a result of the breach was too remote.

In point of fact, in Higgs v Foster [2004] EWCA Civ 843, where a police officer in pursuit of a suspected criminal fell into an uncovered inspection pit at night, it was held that the landowner owed no duty of care to trespassers in the circumstances. This was because the landowner did not know, nor did they have reasonable grounds for believing, that a trespasser would enter his premises and come into the vicinity of the pit.

What’s more, in Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 231, it was held that the duty owed to trespassers must be determined by reference to the circumstances at the time the alleged breach of duty resulted in the injury to the trespasser. For instance, injuries flowing from a police officer forcing his way onto property in hot pursuit of a suspected criminal might be treated very differently to injuries suffered by the same officer who carefully made his way onto open land, uninhibited by walls or fences, to carry out routine enquiries. Potentially, applying the requisite legal tests for negligence claims in both of these different scenarios could give two very different results. Put simply, the law is readily able to take proper account of the context in which claims arise.

So maybe these fears of claim-happy cops is nothing more than media scaremongering after all.

‘I think the public seem to be at risk of being on the receiving end of litigation every time an officer does his or her duty and more so if that officer is not full-time or has not received the level of training commensurate with the role.’

I don’t know the full facts here, but it seems strange to suggest that a greater level of training would have prevented this; I’m not sure that ‘climb carefully over 3 foot high fences rather than fall over them’ is a lesson offered at Hendon Police College.

Earlier this year, PC Kelly Jones dropped a compensation claim that she was seeking from a Norfolk garage after she tripped on a kerb.

I covered the original story on Law Actually; let’s overlook the fact I hadn’t subsequently heard the claim had been dropped.

Ahem.

People Love a Bargain - Black Friday Attacks

From the Independent 29/11/13:

Black Friday, the American holiday dedicated to discount shopping, seems to have been successfully imported into the UK, bringing with it both crowds and chaos.

[…] Asda seems to have been particularly affected by the frenzy, with multiple reports of hospitalizations and injuries from Asda stores across the UK.

In an Asda store in west Belfast there were claims that heavily pregnant woman had been pushed and shoved and pensioners had been knocked to the ground [with one reportedly sustaining a broken arm in the process].

"It was just a free-for-all. It was frightening," said one woman who witnessed the scenes at the Westwood Centre. "People were getting trailed to the ground. [Getting what to the ground?] People were arguing with people. [At least they weren’t trying to argue with inanimate objects then!] Two of my friends were injured."

The woman claimed her friend was kicked in the stomach by a shopper trying to take a TV from her.

Similar reports have emerged from stores in Liverpool and Bristol, with eyewitnesses reporting in the latter store that a man had to be restrained by security guards after becoming annoyed that he could only buy a single TV.

Only on Bristolian could start a fight trying to purchase a TV!

I’m certainly not excusing the generally loutish behaviour seen during ‘Black Friday’ but, let’s face it, shopping is stressful. Christmas is more stressful still. Combine them both together (and add in herd instinct and small-man-syndrome) and you’ve got a potentially dangerous mixture. The January sales are bad enough, but after Christmas shopping is for fun; before Christmas, lives depend on it.

There’s simply no escaping from the fact that people love a bargain and when there’s the prospect of losing out on a good deal, people act irrationally. Heck, some would kill to get 40% off of a TV (or at least start a stampede).

Sadly, I think Black Friday is here to stay. Clearly the safety of customers is going to be an important consideration as the phenomenon grows even bigger. As I’m fond of saying, liability is never far away, and shops are going to have to start taking these risks seriously if they’re to avoid a wave of costly litigation.

In the meantime, I’m waiting for a documentary ‘Police, Camera, Action’ style which compiles all the CCTV footage showing customer scrums in supermarkets and shopping malls up and down the country on Black Friday. No doubt it would be voiced-over by a 20-something Northerner muttering an endless stream of utterly trite comments – as is the preference for narrators on TV shows at the moment.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been a bit of a sucker for a bargain this year, albeit from the relative safety of my office chair. Amazon have had a field day today (and that’s just down to me). Still, if you can’t spend of a bit of money at this time of year, when can you?

UK Drink Driving Law: Is Enough Done To Curb Deaths?

Guest PostWith the Christmas period quickly approaching, police forces all over the country step up their efforts to fight drink driving over concerns that too much enjoyment of the festive period (and all it brings) will inevitably lead to a rise in the crime. They’re not wrong to be concerned either – according to the Department for Transport, while deaths caused by drink driving have had a trend of steady decline in the last thirty years, last year’s statistics showed a rise of almost 30%.

It comes as no surprise, then, that there have been consistent calls this past year for tougher laws and regulations against a variety of driving offences – whether it’s drug/drink driving, or just using a mobile phone. There are plans to introduce stricter ‘drug driving’ laws next year (with harsher sentencing), Scotland plans to cut their limit by almost 50% and a victim’s sister has handed a petition to Downing Street calling for an immediate ban for those arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

A Steady Drop and a Sudden Rise: What’s Behind the Increase?
The RAC’s David Bizley has called these rises, which were announced earlier this year, a ‘call for concern’, and he’d be right to do so – while figures have shown a general decline since records began in 1979 (from 1,640 a year down to just 230 in 2011), last year’s figures showed a one of the first rise in almost a decade.

The reasons behind the rise are unclear, and it’s still lower than the figures from 2009 (as well as all years previously), but the suggestion seems to be that limits need changing and more effective enforcement of existing law is needed – both too high a limit and ineffective policing could be behind the cause.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa) has therefore called for a drop in the drink drive limit (recommendations have suggested lowering to 50mg per 100ml of blood) and for the government to re-evaluate their anti-drink driving campaigns, as well as to invest in tighter policing.

The Line between Lower Limits & Stricter Bans
A terrible case was brought to our attention once again recently as the sister of a student, who was killed by a drunk driver in 2010, submitted her 13,000-signature petition calling for a drastic change in law. As it stands, by default, those arrested and awaiting trial for a drink-related driving offence are still able to drive – a ban is to be handed down by a sentencing judge in the event a guilty plea is entered or guilty verdict is reached.

Of course, there are always going to be exception circumstances (like repeat offenders, High Risk Offenders, incredibly serious incidents etc.) and in these instances judges do have the power to ban anyone on bail. The Ministry of Justice have argued that, as a result, the powers already exist for judges to ban drivers in these most serious of cases.

A much lower drink driving limit could help to curb deaths, as well as result in harsher sentencing for what seems like a serious case but is not considered as such by law. As it stands, the UK’s alcohol limit is 80mg per 100ml of blood – while there are no plans for changes across the board, Scotland is going through legislative changes cut this by almost 40% to 50mg.

Automatic Bans – Not Considering ‘Special Reasons’?
However, a blanket ban could have adverse effects on either those who might later be found innocent, or those who are successfully able to argue exceptional hardship to appeal a ban. There are also special reasons to consider including drinks spiked/laced, or driving in an emergency (eg. if you’re fleeing from very real threats to your life).

Of course, incidents like the one above are absolutely awful, and shouldn’t ever happen – the man found guilty of causing the teenager’s death was, quite rightly, sentenced to four years in jail for death by careless driving. He was also almost twice the legal alcohol limit, so it’s perfectly understandable why the victim’s family felt the defendant’s ability to continue to drive while awaiting trial was ‘totally disrespectful’.

Nonetheless, the law has a duty to be fair and judges need the power to be able to make their own judgements (which is why the MoJ argue the powers already exist) – the appropriate line is a difficult one to find, especially with cases such as this and figures revealing a rise in deaths.

This guest post was written by Tom McShane – blogger and writer for drink driving specialists McMillans Drink Driving Solicitors. While all drink driving offences should be taken seriously, Tom hopes new legislation changes won’t fall down hard on innocent drivers or defendable cases.

The Most Common Causes of Car Accidents

Guest Post

Driving is a dangerous activity as not only does it have the potential to affect your safety, but it can also affect the passengers in your car, other drivers and their passengers, and any pedestrians. There are many causes for car accidents, but there are three main ones that are extremely worrying as they all come back to driver behaviour.

Driving whilst distracted, driving at high speeds and driving whilst tired are the main perpetrators. With a few adjustments, the chance of being involved in a car accident can be drastically reduced.

Driving Whilst Distracted
Driving whilst distracted can be extremely dangerous as it means you do not know what is going on around you. If a child runs in front of the road, you may not have been paying attention to notice them in time or, if you did, you may have slammed on the brakes or swerved and not noticed the car behind you or the cyclist on the other side of the road.

Being aware of what is going on around you at all times is important whilst driving. You need to be constantly checking for potential hazards and preparing for them early on. Distracted driving could be a result of changing or playing with music or the radio, using your phone whilst driving, eating or even dealing with children in the passenger seats.

Driving At High Speeds
The higher the speed you are driving at, the less reaction time you have. This could be a change in traffic, an obstacle you need to avoid or a change in road conditions. This means that an accident you could of potential avoided, could cause serious injury or even be fatal.

Due to the fact that you are driving at such a high speed the impact of your car on a person or piece of property is likely to have more damaging effects than if you were driving at a much slower speed. By reducing your speed and sticking to the designated limits, you could potentially save your life as well as the people around you.

Driving Whilst Tired
Driving should have your full attention, and that is something you can’t give if you are driving whilst tired. This is because your reaction times are much slower and you may not notice things that you may have done if you were fully alert. You are much more likely to miss road signs and any warnings indicating conditions up ahead, meaning that you will be unprepared for them.

You need to be able to react quickly to sudden changes in traffic and road conditions in case things happen quickly, especially on high speed areas such as motorways. If you are planning a long car journey, try swapping over every so often so that one person can get a bit of rest in between. Try to avoid travelling at night but, if it’s necessary, get a good night’s sleep the night before or take a nap before you leave; if you are too tired to carry on, stop off at a service station to take a break.

By making these minor changes to your driving you are less likely to be involved in a car accident that could be your fault. You do, however, still need to watch out for other drivers as they may not all be following such dependable driving conventions.

This post was written by Ekta Mair who, after being involved in a car accident that wasn’t her fault, wanted to provide some safer driving tips to other drivers. She sustained injuries from her accident, so used Claim Advance to ensure she received the compensation she deserved.

HSE uses intervention powers to inspect workplace cooling towers

Sponsored Post

In recognition of the risk of Legionnaires’ disease associated with workplace cooling systems, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) plans to inspect around 5000 sites with such systems over the next 6 months.

A cooling system may consist of a cooling tower, evaporative condenser or other cooling element, together with the associated pipe work, heat exchanger, pumps, supply tanks and pre-treatment equipment.

Legionellosis is the collective name given to the pneumonia-like illness caused by legionella bacteria. This includes the most serious Legionnaires’ disease, as well as the less serious Pontiac fever and Lochgoilhead fever. Legionnaires’ disease is a potentially fatal form of pneumonia and everyone is susceptible to infection. However, people over 45 years of age, smokers, heavy drinkers, those suffering from chronic respiratory or kidney disease and anyone with an impaired immune system are at the greatest risk.

The bacterium Legionella pneumophila and related bacteria are common in natural water sources such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs, but usually in low numbers. They may also be found in purpose-built water systems such as cooling towers and evaporative condensers.

There is a reasonably foreseeable legionella risk in water systems which:

• have a water temperature between 20–45 °C
• creates and/or spreads breathable droplets, e.g. aerosol created by a cooling tower, or water outlets
• stores and/or re-circulates water
• is likely to contain a source of food for the organism, e.g. presence of sludge, scale or fouling

As a result, the conditions found in workplace cooling systems can allow naturally-present bacteria to grow considerably, thereby increasing the risks of Legionnaires ’ disease. Consequently, it’s vital to take precautions to manage the risk of a serious bacteria outbreak developing.

The HSE’s intervention programme has come about as a result of concerning numbers of Legionnaire’s outbreaks over the last decade. Fostering greater awareness of the risk associated with workplace cooling systems is very much at the heart of the programme.

The HSE advises workplaces which have cooling towers or evaporative condensers to should put in place suitable measures mitigate the risk of legionella. Information on the way to manage these risk are described in Legionnaires’ disease: The control of Legionella bacteria in water systems.

This document outlines the requirements for all workplaces to follow in respect of their cooling systems which present a Legionnaires’ risk. It includes information on the commissioning, operation and maintenance of cooling systems, what steps can be taken to combat the presence of high levels of legionella bacteria, and details suitable monitoring systems and processes which can be deployed.

Remedial measures taken to guard against Legionnaire’s disease do not necessarily mean the relevant cooling system must be replaced.  For example, Covac's Tank Relining allows for an existing water tank to remain in use and brings with it the assurance of the Covac brand.

Buttock-shuffle claimant gotcha’d via covert surveillance

From the London Evening Standard 24/10/13:

A grandmother who claimed she could only shuffle down stairs on her buttocks managed to trick a hospital consultant as part of a “fraudulent” bid to claim more than £750,000 in compensation, the High Court heard.

Yowsa!

Barbara Fari, a mother of 13 who is in her sixties, sued Homes for Haringey on the grounds her life had been “drastically altered” after she tripped on a paving stone in Hornsey in May 2008 and hurt her knee.

You’ve got to watch out for those paving stones (particularly the uneven ones)! Of course, it will help your claim considerably if you actually trip over the ruddy thing and injure yourself as a result.

The council-run organisation initially admitted liability and offered to settle. But it changed its mind after Mrs Fari said she needed round-the- clock care because she could no longer walk unaided and could only climb stairs by shuffling up and down on her buttocks and lodged a claim for more than £750,000.

That claim was struck out at Central London County Court last October after Mrs Fari was caught on camera moving around without help during a secret surveillance operation.

That makes a change. Alleged cases of benefits fraud (or fraudulent civil claims) are usually uncovered via evidence of the relevant person dancing drunkenly on a table or twerking like the world isn’t watching - Miley Cyrus style.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{Requisite photos of drunken table-dancing & Miley Cyrus twerking … as if you needed reminding!}

The judge rejected Mrs Fari’s right to any payout and referred her case to the High Court for abuse of process.

That really will give Mrs Fari a reason to clench her buttocks.

Is Placing Defibrillators In Public Places Legally Right?

Guest PostEvery year, around 270,000 people suffer a heart attack in the UK, many of these sudden and unprovoked. Being able to act quickly, safely and most importantly, effectively, can quite literally be the difference between life and death.

Keeping calm and collected is key to not becoming overwhelmed, and with sufficient training, first aiders are taught how to keep calm under pressure and follow the required procedures. In the business world, detailed and well-rehearsed strategies are put in place to ensure that should the event of a sudden cardiac arrest, a trained first aider has the equipment and know-how to act accordingly.

How Would You Act?
However, whilst it’s all well and good distributing defibrillators in commercial institutes, can you really do the same in public places? In any business there will be an individual or team of first aiders who are trained in defibrillator application, but can you really expect a member of the public to carry out such a task?

In February 2007, the National Defibrillator Programme placed and distributed defibrillators in public locations across the UK. This was implemented so that members of the public could act quicker thanks to closer access to life-saving Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). But is it right to entrust the unknown skills of the public with the responsibility of saving someone’s life?

The Legalities
No-one likes legal red tape and in such a situation when someone’s life is at risk, many could be hesitant to take responsibility. What if something goes wrong? What if you don’t follow the procedures? What if you’re held responsible? It’s easy to see how quickly things can escalate out of your control.

This is where the debate really begins to gain momentum. For members of the public that have not received formal AED training, the legal implications can be split into statutory rights - those imposed by parliament - and common law - century long laws - and it is this last point where potential liability can arise.

Could I Be At Fault?
The main legal loop that many people can become entangled in is liability and negligence. Acting to save someone’s life can fall on both the individual and the location. If an institution supplied an AED yet did not offer training on how to utilise it, they would be held accountable. Similarly, a non first-aider may not be expected to employ the standard care of a trained professional and so is unlikely to face a claim. There is no legal obligation to assist and individual in need of resuscitation providing they are not the cause.

It is this grey area that often sees family members, friends and indeed strangers unsure, liable and legally dwarfed by their human intentions. Emergencies require emergency action and in the face of a cardiac arrest, every minute that passes, the victim’s chance of survival decrease by 10%.

So What ‘s The Best Course Of Action?
The real answer quite simply falls into your own judgement. If you own a property that provides an AED in a public place, then ensure that a qualified individual is located nearby. Similarly, if you have previous first aid / Defibrillator training or you are confident at the chance of resuscitating the victim, then have faith in your actions.

Sudden Cardiac Arrests can happen anytime, anyplace so make sure you are prepared. Always recruit the expertise of a defibrillator or AED supplier should you have any question and make yourself aware of the laws, procedures and practices surrounding AED’s in the public domain.

Phil Warrington, a law student, looks at the debate surrounding the distribution of AED’s within the public sector and the legal implications that have come with it. For reputable and reliable AED’s and defibrillators, he recommends Defibrillators UK; the UK’s leading defibrillator and AED training provider.