Scottish man launches two separate accident claims

A Scottish man in his late 50s has launched two separate accident claims, both for factory work accidents in which he suffered personal injury.

A no win no fee solicitor firm has agreed to represent the man in both claims and has lodged all the relevant paperwork, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

It is understood that the first of the claims relates to an incident that occurred in a packing factory near Turiff. It is alleged that the claimant suffered a head injury after banging his head against machinery while transporting eggs across the factory floor.

The second claim refers to an incident which happened at a large-scale bakery, when the claimant suffered an eye injury as a result of it becoming contaminated with a work-related substance.

The defendants have not commented on the cases, other than to say that it is in the hands of their liability insurers.

The claimant is hoping to secure around £50,000 in injury damages for each incident.

Dates have been set for both hearings in January and February 2011.

Making Schools Safe For Teachers

School is supposed to be a completely safe environment, protecting the nation’s children against harm. But what about the safety of those who work in schools, and just how safe are our educational establishments?

Even in the relatively safe environment of the classroom, there are hazards. Over the last three years, school staff in one area of the UK – Sunderland and County Durham – have won almost £300,000 in injuries compensation claims. If you then consider that this is just one small area of the country, you can estimate just how many accidents that result in compensation payouts occur across the UK every year.

Of that small sample area, the largest payout was for one of the more modern working illnesses – stress. Other claims were for injuries sustained from lifting heavy furniture, trips, slips and falls, injuries caused by falling objects and even a back injury caused by overstretching to secure a roller shutter.

The National Union of Teachers, quick to dismiss recent press reports of seemingly trivial incidences, has stressed that its members and the union itself only pursue claims where it is clear that an employer has been negligent. And this in itself is probably the most important consideration. Whilst many councils (and privately owned schools) meet strict health and safety guidelines concerning the safety of the children, teachers’ employers must also realise that this duty of care also extends to the adults who work within the education system. A less than stringent approach to maintaining a safe working environment for teachers and staff should be treated in the same way as within any other working environment – swiftly and with the full force of the law.

Teaching is more than just a job; it’s a vocation. Those who go into teaching don’t do it for the money, but that does not give those who run the schools the right to assume that conditions should be any less safe as a result. Teachers and school staff have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to work in a safe and healthy environment. This means that those who run the schools – the local council, education authority and, in some cases, commercial enterprises – have a duty of care to all members of staff to protect them from unnecessary and preventable accidents.

Something as simple as a wet floor can cause a serious injury. If that wet floor does not have a warning sign in place, the school could be held responsible for any injury as a result, including injuries to teachers or staff. Making staff aware of their responsibilities to avoid creating potentially dangerous situations is a matter of training and instruction, but it is also a matter of instructing those who run our schools to treat them in the same way that any other employer treats their working environment.

Mention ‘accidents at work’ to most people and the last environment most would even contemplate as being hazardous would be a school. But in the same way that factories and workshops have the potential to house dangerous situations, so do schools. And those who work in schools and colleges have exactly the same rights as every other worker in the UK. The money spent on compensating injured teachers could be put to far better use improving the overall educational standards of the UK’s schools. Perhaps it is about time that accidents in supposedly ’safe’ environments were taken a little more seriously, and that health and safety legislation designed to protect workers in other occupations was given the same gravitas in schools.

The husband of a woman who died after gross medical negligence at a private clinic, has received £260,000 in damages.

The 50 year old man sued the plastic surgeon following the loss of his wife of 15 years, after a “tummy tuck” cosmetic operation.

He said as a result of the death he gave up his £39,000-a-year job as a self-employed builder to care for the couple’s daughter.

His 36 year old wife died in 1999 after undergoing an abdominoplasty at the Highgate Hospital, London.

The High Court, sitting in Bristol, heard that complications developed and she slipped into a coma.

Two days after the £5,500 operation she had to be moved to the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, where she died a day later.

Awarding the compensation claim damages, Judge Paul Darlow said: “There were devastating post-operative complications as a result of which her life was taken away at the age of 36.”

After the hearing her husband stated: “This is the end of a terrible episode for my family.”

His injury lawyers added: “This operation should not have gone ahead at all. But because the medics failed to note the important warning signs, they proceeded and she died.”

A factory worker has received £3,800 in a work accident claim for sustaining serious personal injury whilst at work.
His injury lawyers said that the man was burned at work after being provided with inadequate protective gear.
The 33 year old man was left with a six by three inch scar across his forearm after the accident. He was working as a shift leader for a food packaging manufacturer at the time.

The man, from St Neots, in Cambridgeshire, was adjusting the bolts on a machine but slipped and fell onto a hot part of the machine. As a result of the accident he sustained burns on his left bicep and forearm.
The man said: “I decided to go for work accident claims because I felt strongly that had I been provided with proper work wear that this could have been avoided.”
His injury lawyers proved that he was provided with inadequate heat resistant gloves. The gloves had protective sleeves but these were prone to fall down easily, leaving employees’ arms exposed. His employers admitted liability and settled the claim out of court.
His injury lawyers added: “In this case, although protective gloves were provided they were unsuitable to the job in hand.”

According to shock new figures, medical negligence by the NHS in Sheffield cost more than £5.6 million in one year.

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals – which includes the Jessop Wing, Weston Park, Northern General, Royal Hallamshire, and Charles Clifford hospitals – topped with £3.25m in compensation claim damages.

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust also paid out £627,809 relating to professional negligence cases pre-dating 1995.

The figures are embarrasing for the trust, especially when a South Yorkshire Police officer is claiming compensation for £100,000 due to knee problems after a medical blunder.

His injury lawyers said that the doctors failed to realise he had developed an infection in his knee after surgery. According to the writ filed in the court, the delay left him with a stiff knee.

Mike Richmond, medical director for Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said: “We have received notification of this claim and to date have denied liability.”

Among other hospitals under criticism is Sheffield Children’s Hospital, which had no claims from before 1995, but paid out £57,500 to be paid in damages.

A spokeswoman for Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust said the figures related to three claims over the year.

In a public liability case, a driver has lodged a compensation claim against Cheshire West and Chester Council, after damaging his car driving over a pothole.

The Jaguar S-Type driven by the 51-year old driver suffered a blown tyre when it hit a pothole ‘the size of a football’, resulting in a £170 repair bill.

The motorist has now accused the council of neglecting its duty to keep the roads in the area safe.

His anger was increased furthermore after he discovered that the council had only inspected the patch on the road three days before the incident, yet had failed to act on the problem.

He said: “What I want to know is what is considered to be acceptable to the council? The road is in a very bad state. If a motorcyclist was to hit a pothole in the dark then it could prove fatal.

“That stretch of road is absolutely terrible. Prior to where I blew my tyre out, the condition of the road looks like a jigsaw puzzle.”

It’s believed that the council has said they would not be investigating the matter further due to the large number of potholes that had appeared on roads due to the unusually cold weather throughout the winter months.

A new system to speed up the process of claiming car accident compensation has been looked at by parliament ministers.

Under the new guidelines, there will be fixed stages and costs associated to what type of road accident the victim has had and what personal injury they have suffered.

The system could be similar to the current Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme, which compensates those involved in an accident with an uninsured or hit-and-run driver.

Compensation claims are also awarded on a tariff basis depending on the type and amount of losses sustained by the innocent party.

The new proposals would introduce deadlines for the claimants’ and defendants’ solicitors to put forward their claim intentions.

Only sums between £1,000 and £10,000 will be covered by the new system – though a figure between these numbers make up the majority of accident claim compensation payouts at the present time.

The scheme, which was developed in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, is due to come into effect from the 30th April.

A man who suffered multiple personal injury in a work accident, has been awarded £35,000 in compensation claims.

The man’s job involved unloading new cars from locomotive transporters.

On the day of his work accident, he found that the vehicle he was attempting to remove would not start. To have a closer look, the man attempted to climb down from the locomotive onto the track side.

When he launched his work accident claim, his employers refused to admit liability because they said that they had done nothing wrong.

His injury lawyers carried out research into the designs of rail locomotives and concluded that there was a great deal, in design terms, that the employers should have done to ensure employees were not exposed to the risk of personal injury.

They also got an expert report from an industrial engineer who specialised in the design of locomotive rolling stock to confirm their suspicions.

The insurers had no choice but to accept the evidence and make payment to the injured man of £35,000 in compensation.