Personal Injury Law Blogs

The consequences of injuries sustained whilst working with dangerous chemicals

The medical consequences of being injured by a dangerous chemical can be extremely serious. The hazard a chemical presents depends on its properties; if it is flammable or corrosive, contact could be result in burns injuries, explosive chemicals could cause injury and damage over a considerable area, whilst poisonous or radio-active chemicals might cause local or systemic injury to people, with the risk that the hazard could spread into the wider environment if not contained. Certain chemicals toxins can spread throughout the body via the bloodstream and some possess a propensity to target certain internal organs or are specifically reproductive toxins or human carcinogens.

The seriousness of any injuries sustained as a result of contact with a dangerous chemical is usually determined by the toxicity of the chemical, the level and duration of exposure and the effectiveness of medical assistance received by the victim. The injuries themselves range all the way from minor skin irritation through to life threatening burns, respiratory system damage or systemic poisoning causing the failure of one or more major internal organs. Needless to say, the victims of more serious workplace chemical injuries can, in extreme cases, die as a result or suffer life-long devastating disabilities.

No one would suggest that all dangerous chemical related accidents resulting in injuries to workers are due to employers being negligent in carrying out their legal duties to maintain a safe workplace and ensure as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees – but a surprisingly large number are. In these cases a consequence of such injuries can be the injured employer taking legal advice from a specialist work accident lawyer and bringing a claim for compensation, get on of the ones suggested in the post
– a fair and reasonable step to take when an employee’s life has been turned upside down through no fault of their own.

In addition to having to defend any personal injury claims and accept higher insurance premiums when compensation is awarded, an employer will also be acutely reminded of the power of negative publicity when it comes to projecting a positive image to customers and the wider community and the direct effect this might have on sales, recruitment and the morale of existing employees. The employer will also be compelled by the Health and Safety Executive or other health and safety authority to take the necessary steps to ensure that a similar dangerous chemical related accident can’t occur again by installing the previously missing risk management measures. In this way the pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the accident victim won’t have been in vain.

If you have been injured by chemicals following an accident at work, and you think you are entitled to compensation, make sure that you instruct a personal injury lawyer who specializes in work related accidents, who will be best placed to assess your case, gather medical and other evidence and claim compensation of your behalf.

Tim Bishop is the senior partner of Wiltshire, Hampshire and Dorset based Bonallack and Bishop – specialist work accident solicitors. For more information about claiming compensation for a work related accident, phone one of their workplace accident solicitors on 01722 422300 or visit their specialist website at http://www.workaccidentsolicitors.co.uk.

Premises Liability: Determining Who Assumes Risk

Personal Injury Attorney

Premises liability cases often seem fairly clear-cut.

If a landlord fails to fix a loose handrail in one of their homes and a tenant falls after leaning on the rail, the landlord assumes the risk because it was his or her responsibility to maintain the safety of the house. If a holiday shopper is injured on a mall escalator that is malfunctioning because it is past its inspection due date, the building owner must assume responsibility and compensate the injured party for things like medical bills and loss of income.

However, there are some situations when it is not always immediately clear who should assume the risk.One prime example of this is a recent ski resort liability case.

Risk on the Slopes

Idaho’s Snow Flake resort recently faced a premises liability lawsuit for negligence after a skier broke his leg on one of their slopes. One of the main questions that this lawsuit brought up was who should assume the risk at a place like a ski resort, where people are knowingly choosing to participate in a physical activity that could potentially result in an injury.

In Idaho, skiers typically assume the risk and legal responsibility for injuries that result from skiing—but that doesn’t necessarily mean that resorts are always free of fault.

There is evidence that the man filing the lawsuit against the Snow Flake resort was skiing out of control at the time that he fell and broke his leg, which might suggest that the accident was his fault. However, that’s not the end of the story. The man fell on a bare spot of the slope, and there is evidence that the resort knew about this bare spot,but that they failed to mark it. Ski resorts are legally responsible for maintaining their runs and clearly marking any potential hazards.

Businesses have a duty to keep their premises in a “reasonably safe” condition, and Snow Flake failed to do that because they did not mark or block off a dangerous area on a slope where they knew that people would be skiing.

We should not always assume that someone injured at a recreational site brought that injury upon themselves by participating in a risky activity. The owners of that recreational site need to be held to a set safety standard to ensure that the people at that site aren’t unknowingly put in danger.

Businesses Have a Duty to Warn Us about Potential Hazards

Injury Lawyer

It’s important that businesses regularly inspect their premises and identify any potential hazards. Business and building owners should not just assume that visitors to their premises are going to be able to identify potential risks, especially when those potential hazards are not clearly visible.

This is also the issue that has come up in a recent premises liability case in Madison County, Illinois. Patricia Fuentes is currently suing a realty and management group for negligence after she broke her ankle on a vacant property. Fuentes claims that she was driving through town when she noticed that a house that had been vacant for two years had a “For Sale” sign in front of it, leading her to investigate.

There were no signs warning prospective buyers not to walk around the property, so Fuentes says she walked over to the patio at the rear of the house. Unfortunately, the patio contained a cellar door that was the same color as andlevel with the ground, and when Fuentes accidentally stepped on it, the door gave way and she fell about six feet into the cellar.

This case is somewhat unusual because Fuentes was not a resident of the property or a visitor to a typical business site. However, because the house was currently owned by an asset management group and had a “For Sale” sign, it can be considered as a building that potential buyers had a right to visit. If the asset management group and the realty company they were working with were putting the house up for sale, it was their responsibility to make sure that the house was safe for visitors. Or they should at least have put up warning signs about potential risks until they could address the problem.

Due to the lack of any warning and the instability of the cellar door, Fuentes should not be held at fault for the accident.

Knowing When a Business Is at Fault for an Accident

Auto Accident

Some people who are injured on a business premise might blame themselves for not taking more care, or might even think that the accident was something that could not have been prevented. However, it’s important to look closely at the circumstances of the incident to determine whether a business may be partially or fully at fault. If the accident were caused by negligence, businesses need to be held responsible so that the same kind of accident doesn’t happen to anyone else again in the future.

In my home state of Florida, businesses are legally responsible for accidents on their property if they “had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken immediate action to remedy it”. “Constructive knowledge” can also mean that the dangerous condition existed for a long enough amount of time that a responsible business owner should have known about it, or that the situation had occurred before and was foreseeable.

Everyone should be aware of their own rights and the responsibilities of property owners—and should seek out the advice of a legal authority like a personal injury attorney if they are unsure of who should assume responsibility in any type of accident. Premises liability and other areas of personal injury law can get complex, but we need to work to determine who assumes therisk in order to keep other people out of dangerous situations.Sometimes you may be too close to the situation to objectively assess whether or not someone else was at fault. Taking steps to seek help isn’t just about justice for you; it’s also about keeping others safe.

About the Author:
Andrew Winston is a partner at the personal injury law firm of Lawlor Winston White & Murphy. He has been recognized for excellence in the representation of injured clients by admission to the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, is AV Rated by the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, and was recently voted by his peers as a Florida “SuperLawyer”—an honor reserved for the top 5% of lawyers in the state—and to Florida Trend’s “Legal Elite.”

Medical Evidence for Work Accidents Claims

When you get injured at work and make a work accident claim, it will be necessary to collate various elements of medical evidence. This is nothing for you to worry about: it is an important part of the claims process and is there to help prove the extent of your injuries.

Why is Medical Evidence Necessary?

In order for a work accident claim to succeed, you must be able to establish that:-

1. Someone breached their duty of care towards you. For example, your employer failed to enforce a safe system of work, or your co-worker failed to carry out their role competently;

2. This breach caused you to suffer injury, physically and/or psychologically.

It is the second point – known as causation – that will require the use of medical evidence. Not only will this verify the presence of your injury, it will also support the claim that your injury was caused as a direct result of your work accident.

How is Medical Evidence Obtained?

The first step your solicitor will take when collecting medical evidence is to obtain your medical records – both from your GP and from any hospitals you have visited in the course of your treatment. These will then be sent to a medical expert for review.

Your solicitor will take care when choosing which expert to instruct, and will only select someone who is able to comment on your injury. For example, if you have suffered a musculo-skeletal problem, an orthopaedic surgeon will be contacted. This means your expert many not live locally. In more complex cases, it may also necessary to instruct more than one medical expert.

Once your records have been reviewed, it is highly likely that the expert will want to assess you in person. Your solicitor will arrange an appointment on your behalf, taking into consideration a suitable time and place. After your injuries have been examined, the expert will be in a position to write a report. This will be entirely impartial; it is not intended to benefit either claimant or defendant. Rather, it is an objective opinion as to:-

• The cause of your injuries;

• The extent of your pain and suffering;

• Prognosis – ie. the extent of future pain and suffering;

• How your injuries have effected your life, both now and in the future.

What if the Medical Report is not favourable?

If the medical report is not favourable, in that it does not support your claim, your solicitor will discuss with you what action to take next. This may involve instructing another medical expert, or trying to settle the claim with a lower compensation settlement.

On the other hand, if the report is supportive, your solicitor will use the medical expert’s opinion to help value your claim. This is known as quantum. When a suitable sum has been calculated, the figure will be proposed to the other side and negotiations will ensue. If a settlement can be reached in this way, your case will have to go to court. You will receive your compensation in full soon afterwards.

Work accident claims involve highly complex legal work but your solicitor must also have a firm grasp of medical concepts. So make sure that when instructing your solicitor, they are a work accident specialist.

Tim Bishop is the senior partner of Bonallack and Bishop – Solicitors with specialist teams of work accident and medical negligence experts acting for clients nationwide. For more information about claiming compensation, visit their specialist websites at http://www.workaccidentsolicitors.co.uk or http://www.themedicalnegligencesolicitor.co.uk, or alternatively give their claim team a call on 01722 422300.

Whiplash claimants may have to produce more supporting evidence after an increase in fraudulent claims

Ministers should consider reducing the limitation period for road accident insurance claims, and require whiplash claimants to produce more supporting evidence. However, genuine claimants should not be demonised.  These were some of the key findings in a report published last summer by the Transport Select Committee. The Committee Chair Louise Ellman MP, said at the launch of the report:

“Whiplash injuries can have debilitating consequences for those who suffer them. However, some of the increase in whiplash claims will have been due to fraud or exaggeration. To help bring insurance premiums down the Government must tighten up the requirements for motor insurance claims and ensure that insurers honour their commitment to reduce premiums.”

The report states that the Government should consider requiring claimants to provide proof that they have either been seen by a doctor or attended Accident and Emergency soon after the accident. There should be a presumption against accepting claims where adequate proof of injury is not provided.

The Committee was surprised to hear that insurers sometimes make offers to personal injury claimants before a medical report has been received. The report warns that insurers must end practices which encourage fraud. If they do not, the Government must take steps to protect motorists.  In theory, motor insurers have committed to passing any reduction in costs that arise from legal reforms onto the consumer in the form of lower premiums.  The report recommends that the Government explains how it will monitor that this particular commitment is being honoured in practice.

The number of fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims has contributed to the increase in motor insurance premiums in recent years. Estimates of the percentage of fraudulent claims ranged widely from 0.1% to over 60%, according to the report. These estimates were based on firms’ caseloads, statistical extrapolation and survey data.  The types of fraudulent activity mentioned by witnesses included:

  • ‘cash-for-crash’, where crashes were deliberately caused in order to generate a claim;
  • claims relating to non-existent passengers;
  • fabricated or exaggerated symptoms; and
  • exaggeration of the impact of a genuine injury.

There is an unfortunate absence of detailed statistics about road traffic accidents. This means that it is impossible to relate the increasing number of personal injury claims in recent years to the number of accidents.  According to the MPS, the Government needs to improve the collection of data about road accidents as well as improve the detection of fraudulent personal injury claims

The report points out that there are many factors which contribute to the increasing cost of motor insurance including the activities of claims management companies, the poor safety record of young drivers and competition issues, something which is now under investigation by the Competition Commission.

Louise Ellman MP, concluded by saying that many claims are genuine and relate to real injuries which affect people for months or years. In the debate about how to reduce fraud and exaggeration, genuine claimants should not be demonised simply because their condition cannot be picked up on a scan.

Whiplash is a term that refers specifically to neck trauma caused by the head unexpectedly and unnaturally jolting in any direction and damaging tissue in the neck.  If, after a motor accident, a person experiences any of the following symptoms, they may have cause to make a whiplash accident claim:

  • Constant discomfort or pain in the neck area
  • Painful twitches or twinges in the shoulders
  • Difficulty moving the neck due to pain or stiff muscles
  • Light-headedness, uneasy balance and/or slight tinnitus
  • Headaches

Sometimes it can take up to 24 hours for symptoms to develop after an accident. Usually, the discomfort and pain are temporary but some injuries can last for months and, in some cases, years or even permanently. Victims of whiplash can struggle to drive, exercise or carry out any manual labour.  They may even have to stop work.

Compensation for whiplash is critical when it comes to getting a genuine victim back on his or her feet. The financial support provided by a successful claim can help pay for rehabilitation and cover loss of income if necessary.

To pursue a whiplash injury claim the first thing to do is contact a solicitor specialising in this area. Close Thornton Solicitors is a long established firm and has a team of lawyers specialising in personal injury claims. For further information, please contact Shaun Burke on 01325 466461 or email shaun.burke@close-thornton.co.uk.

Florida Supreme Court Leaves Questions for Medical Malpractice Law

On December 12, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion expressing its disapproval of a 2011 Florida law that placed restrictions on the ability of expert witnesses to testify in medical malpractice cases. The law allows Florida-licensed medical professionals to present expert testimony in medical malpractice cases, but requires out-of-state medical professionals to get an expert witness certificate before being permitted to testify.

In 2013, the Legislature further approved a measure that restricts who may even testify as a witness in a medical malpractice case, requiring that expert witnesses who are called to testify either for or against a defendant be licensed in the identical, not just similar, medical specialty as that defendant. These limitations, according to the medical malpractice lawyer, would have “a chilling effect on the ability to obtain expert witnesses.” Certainly, the pool of experts qualified to testify would be restricted by the law’s requirements.

[Editor’s note – see also our guide to some of the best Florida mesothelioma lawyers here]

How Might the Law Affect a Malpractice Case?

According to a medical malpractice attorney a Texas resident, wishes to file suit against her podiatric surgeon for malpractice because he operated on the wrong foot while she was in Florida specifically for her surgery. Her attorneys wish to call one of the most renowned surgeons in the United States, Dr. John Doe of Houston, Texas, to testify against the defendant surgeon.

Based on the Florida law, before Dr. Doe would be allowed to testify, he would have to obtain an expert witness certificate. Otherwise, the plaintiff would be forced to find a Florida doctor to testify against another Florida doctor, and many in-state doctors refuse to testify against other doctors in the same state. Additionally, Dr. Doe would not be able to testify unless he was licensed in the exact same medical specialty (in this case, podiatry) as the defendant surgeon. Even if Dr. Doe would make the best expert witness possible for the plaintiff’s case and is her absolute first choice, if he was not licensed in podiatric surgery, he would be unable to testify.

Essentially, the plaintiff’s right to call witnesses and present her best evidence to a court has been severely limited by the application of the Florida law. According to a medical malpractice lawyer this deals a harsh blow to justice, particularly since the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff to prove malpractice. In a medical malpractice case where expert testimony can be a critical factor in the outcome, one could argue that any barrier to obtaining an expert could be deemed unconstitutional.

Editor’s note – See also this guide to some of Jacksonville’s Best Accident Injury Lawyers in Florida for more information on relevant attorneys you may want to consider.

Who Determines Who May Testify in a Lawsuit?

Some critics of the Florida law have raised a “separation of powers” argument, indicating that the Legislature exceeded its constitutional authority when it crafted a law telling the court who may and may not testify in a lawsuit. The issue of whether the Florida law presents a substantive versus a procedural rule may be a determining factor in whether the Legislature infringed on the court’s authority. Where substantive rules create and define a particular right, procedural rules regulate the methods for enforcing those rights. Procedural rules involve those rules that control how legal disputes are resolved.  In a separation of powers argument, procedural rules fall under the domain of the courts. The Florida Supreme Court’s ruling did not make a ruling on the constitutionality of the law; instead, it only decided that it would not approve the procedural rule.

A ruling on the constitutionality of Florida’s expert witness law in medical malpractice cases seems almost inevitable.

About the Author

Steve Williams is a legal blog writer for Hoffman, Larin and Agnetti PA, South Florida’s premier medical malpractice attorneys.  The medical malpractice attorneys at Hoffman, Larin and Agnetti, PA offer a free consultation so that you can learn your legal rights. We have offices throughout south Florida in Dade, Broward and Monroe Counties for your convenience.

How to improve your car accident case settlement

car accidentCar accidents are one of the leading causes of accidental injury in the United States.  After you are injured in car accident, you may find yourself not only dealing with the physical pain of an injury.  You may also find yourself in financial stress as you are faced with significant medical bills.   At the same time, you may be unable to work for an extended period as you recover from your injuries, resulting in a loss of income for you and your family.   Thankfully, you may be recover damages from the person whose negligence caused the car accident either through a personal injury lawsuit, or through a settlement with the insurance company.  A car accident lawyer notes that the amount of money you receive after you are injured in a car accident depends on a number of factors.  However, in order to recover damages, you must be able to prove that you were not a fault for the accident and that someone else was at fault, and the extent of your damages.

Evidence of Fault

Showing that the other driver was at fault for the accident and that you were not at fault is critical for maximizing damages.  Thus, it is critical to gather as much information as possible at the scene.

  1. Witnesses.  Make sure that you get the names and contact information for all witnesses.  Testimony from eyewitnesses, particularly third- party witnesses, may have a significant impact on a judge, jury, or insurance adjuster.
  2. Photographs.  Photographs will help determine what lead to the accident.  Make sure that you take photos of not only the vehicles, but also of skid marks in the road and of the scene around the accident. Evidence of road conditions or possible distractions may be important in pinpointing fault.
  3. Police Report.  Make sure that law enforcement is immediately called and that you give a police report.  Police reports are often important evidence in determining fault.
  4. Say very little.  Say very little to others at the scene.  Do not discuss details of the accident with the others involved.  Do not say more to the police officer taking the police report than necessary.  Do not comment on fault.  Just give the facts and leave it up to others to interpret them.  Do not talk to the other driver’s insurance company.  Anything that you say immediately following the accident may be used later in determining fault.  In the moments following an accident, you may not have an accurate picture of what really happened.  Your perspective may be skewed.  Victims have been known to take the blame for an accident, only to later find out that they were not at fault.

Evidence of Injuries

Your damages from a personal injury lawsuit can be not only the amount of your medical bills and your property loss, but also an amount for your pain and suffering. Pain and suffering awards are determined based on a number of factors.  However, the more severe your injuries, the more apparent your injuries, the higher the pain and suffering award is likely to be.  For example, if the accident left you with an unattractive scar on your face, you are likely to receive a higher award than if your injury left no scars. 

  1. Photographs.  Make sure photographs are taken of your injuries  as soon as possible after the accident.  Bruises will fade over time.  So have someone take photos right away.  Also make sure that you get photos of your vehicle to give perspective of the severity of your injuries as a result of the damage to the vehicle.
  2. Doctor’s Testimony.  Go to the emergency room via ambulance immediately after the accident.  Be very clear and detailed when describing your symptoms to your doctor.  Also be honest with the doctor about any pre-existing conditions.  In order to give credible, unimpeachable testimony, it is important for the doctor to have a complete picture of your overall health.

Car accidents are often much more complicated than they seem.  It may be clear to you that the other driver caused the accident by, for example, speeding  or failing to stop at a red light. However, proving fault is not always as easy as it seems.  Therefore, it is critical that you hire a car accident lawyer to help you take the legal steps necessary to make your case as strong as possible.  This is the best way to make sure that you not only win your personal injury lawsuit, but it is the best way to ensure that the damages that you are awarded or insurance settlement that you receive are maximized. You can read at the website more info on how car accident lawyers can help you get compensated.

What is the one thing that injured drivers often fail to do immediately after a car accident that significant impacts their financial settlements?

Are You A Safe Winter Driver?

winter drivingHow easily we forget how difficult driving can be once the first snowfall arrives.  Even when a mere dusting of snow hits the roadways, some drivers seem to forget all of the road rules and act as if they had never driven defensively while other drivers are over confident and can cause an accident due to reckless driving.  Whether you’re a longtime resident of the Northwest and are used to snowfalls in the mountains or you have recently moved to the flat, snowy plains of the Midwest, you will need to know how to drive safely in the winter time.  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, each year approximately 225,000 vehicle accidents occur due to just snow/sleet.  Additionally, an estimated 70,900 and 870 drivers and passengers are killed each year in winter weather related accidents.  While weather is unpredictable and relentless at times, driving more carefully during winter conditions can reduce your risk of being involved in an accident.

Prepare For Winter Driving: Are you Ready?

Winter weather has the potential of striking at any time and sometimes at the most inconvenient moments, but it’s vital to your safety (and other motorists’) to make sure you and your vehicle are ready for winter.  The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has provided a checklist that will help you stay safer when a winter storm hits; according to OSHA, remember the three “Ps” (Prepare, Protect, and Prevent):

  • PREPARE for the Trip: Winter weather is particularly hard on vehicles.  Before you head out on the road, especially during winter, you want to make sure that your car is in good working condition.  Is your battery fully charged?  Are your fluids at good levels?  Are your tires is good condition?  Is your car stocked with an emergency kit and other items that can help you if you become stalled on the side of the road?  Make sure you know how to drive defensively and always give yourself extra time.  Remember!  Ice roads can slow down stopping distances and your overall commuting time.
  • PROTECT Yourself:  It should go without saying that you should always buckle up.  Failing to wear a seat belt or providing proper restraints for all passengers in your car is against the law.  Always have the appropriate car seat for young children and infants and try to keep children passengers in the backseat, whenever possible.
  • PREVENT Crashes on the Road:  You can’t control the weather or the road conditions, but you can control the way YOU drive.  Eliminate driving distractions such as texting, cellphone use, or eating while driving.  Avoid reckless driving behaviors such as aggressive driving or drunk driving.  Snow can often have a hypnotizing effect, especially in the evening and it’s easy to lose focus or feel tired.  Fatigued or drowsy driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, so stay alert and take a break when you start to lose focus on your driving.

Take Control During Winter Weather

When road conditions become hazardous during winter weather it’s best to stay off the roads, but if you must drive follow these safety precautions to avoid an accident due to winter weather:

  • Snow and ice covered roads require slower speeds and slower acceleration.  Even if you have an all-wheel drive (AWD) vehicle, you must drive for the weather conditions.  Additionally, you are not immune to road condition issues such as spinouts, so don’t assume that your car is safer than everyone else’s.
  •  Always use your headlights.  When snow is falling heavily, vehicles are hard to see; your headlights make you more visible to other motorists.
  •  Keep a safe following distance.  Keeping at least one car length distance between you and the vehicle in front of you is vital, especially if the vehicle in front needs to brake suddenly.
  • Always slow down when approaching intersections, bridges, off ramps, or areas on the road that are visibly icy.  Even if you are familiar with roads, you should not drive at the same speed that you would during non-winter seasons.
  •  Never pass a snowplow until it is safe to do so.  A collision with a snowplow is deadly.

Driving in a Winter Wonderland

Driving during the winter can be enjoyable, offering breath taking scenery.  While winter driving can bring out anxiety in even the most experienced of drivers, it’s best to stay calm, aware of your surroundings and the condition of the road.  Don’t let your journey through a Winter Wonderland turn deadly due to your unpreparedness and reckless driving behaviors during the winter months.

 

Owner of firm prosecuted after customer dies in accident at workplace

The owner of a Berkshire car maintenance firm has been heavily fined after a customer was killed in a workplace accident in 2012.

Mr Mark Walker, 79, was fined £7,500 by the Crown Court and ordered to pay substantial costs after a customer was killed in a workplace accident at his car maintenance business on 12 March 2012.

On the day in question Mr Walker, who owns the car maintenance firm “Complete Car Care”  in Wraysbury, Berkshire, was working at the firm’s premises. Mr Walker was reversing his van down the driveway as Mr Frederick Gleeson, 79, was leaving the premises, having dropped his car off to have an oil leak checked. Mr Gleeson was unable to react in time to the oncoming vehicle and was struck, leading to his banging his head on the driveway. He later died in hospital on the same day from his injuries.

The Health and Safety Executive subsequently investigated the accident and found that there had been a number of health and safety breaches by Mr Walker at the firm. In particular, he had put in place no system for managing the movement of vehicles at the premises and had made no effort to ensure that pedestrians and vehicles were segregated. Further, he had no direct rear visibility and a rear monitoring camera that had been fitted to the van hadn’t been used.  The HSE therefore recommended a prosecution of the firm.

The case came before the Reading Crown Court on 13 December 2013. Mr Walker pleaded not guilty to the charges brought under two separate breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and there was a week-long trial, culminating on 18 December 2013. Mr Walker was found guilty of the breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £7,500, as well as being ordered to undertake 250 hours of community service. He is also technically liable for the prosecution’s costs, which amount to around £75,000, although this figure will apparently be covered by his insurance. The Judge ruled that Mr Walker’s breach of duty was a direct cause of Mr Gleeson’s death.

Neither Mr Walker nor his criminal defence lawyers appear to have commented on the sentencing since it was released.

HSE inspector Mr Nigel Fitzhugh stated after the sentencing: “Mr Gleeson’s tragic death was entirely preventable, and could have been avoided had Mark Walker taken precautions before reversing his van.”

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors and can help persons who have been injured in the workplace or elsewhere claim personal injury

Please note that Redmans Solicitors were not associated in any way with this case

Council heavily fined after worker suffers severe injuries on the job

A Scottish local authority has been heavily fined by the Sheriff Court after a worker suffered a severe injury in the course of his employment in January 2011.

South Lanarkshire Council was fined £50,000 after one of its workers suffered a serious injury to his abdomen in an accident at work on 13 January 2011.

On the day in question Mr Derek Maitland, 37, was working as part of a three-man crew on a glass recycling vehicle in Glen Turret, East Kilbride. Mr Maitland was driving the vehicle but work came to a halt when the side-lifter on the lorry became jammed. He therefore unplugged the side lifter’s control unit from its berth outside the cabin and took it inside the cab, as per procedure. A short while later Mr Maitland exited the cab and re-connected the control panel. However, the engine appears to have been left running and this meant that the control panel had power to it at the time it was reconnected. The side lifter’s bucket therefore lowered on to Mr Maitland, crushing his abdomen against the lorry. This resulted in extremely serious injuries to Mr Maitland, including having to have most of his colon and small bowel removed, and having to have extensive repair surgery on damaged arteries. As a result of the accident Mr Maitland is now unable to at and digest normally and has to be fed intravenously. After a period of time off work sick, though, Mr Maitland has subsequently returned to employment. It is not currently known whether Mr Maitland has or will claim personal injury against the Council.

The Health and Safety Executive were notified of the accident and took steps to investigate. This investigation found that a combination of factors had caused or contributed to the accident, including a failure to carry out an adequate risk assessment, a failure to put in place a safe system of work, and a failure to provide adequate information or training to staff. The HSE therefore recommended that the Council be prosecuted for health and safety offences.

The case came before the Hamilton Sheriffs Court on 18 December 2013. South Lanarkshire Council pleaded guilty to three breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was a result fined £50,000.

Neither the Council nor its criminal defence solicitors appear to have commented after the sentencing.

HSE inspector Eve Macready stated after the sentencing: “South Lanarkshire Council understood the risks of working with such vehicles but although supervisors were aware of this developing practice relating to the removal of the pendant controllers, they did nothing to discourage it. The systems of work in place should have triggered activity to stop this practice or review existing arrangements.”

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors and can help those injured at work to claim personal injury

Please note that Redmans Solicitors were not associated in any way with this case

Fire station commander loses race discrimination claim

A black fire station commander has lost his Employment Tribunal claim after he alleged that he had been racially discriminated against by his fire service.

Commander Warren Simpson, a fire station commander for the West Midlands Fire Service, made the claim for direct race discrimination in the Employment Tribunal after he felt that he was being passed over for promotion by his bosses because of his skin colour. Commander Simpson, who is believed to be the highest-ranked black officer in the West Midlands, claimed that his career path was blocked and, further, that he had been racially harassed and bullied because of his skin colour.

Mr Simpson claimed that he had suffered the following detrimental treatment whilst working at West Midlands Fire Service:

  • A failure to promote him as compared to white colleagues
  • A failure to transfer him
  • Colleagues referring to him as “Frank Brunk”

Employment Judge MacMillan stated in the Employment Tribunal’s judgment that his discrimination claim was “a complaint without substance. The claimant is aggrieved he has been unable to achieve a substantive promotion. There is no evidence whatsoever of less favourable treatment than any comparable white officer where the circumstances of that white officer are truly comparable as required by the Equality Act”. This included Commander Simpson’s failure to show any occasion on which he had been passed over for promotion in favour of a white collleague who scored lower than him in promotion exercies. Judge Macmillan went on to dismiss Mr Simpson’s harassment claim, stating that Mr Simpson had appeared in video footage to be “very obviously just as amused as everybody else” and went on to conclude that “we have dealt with each issue raised by Mr Simpson and all the claimant’s complaints of race discrimination fail.”

There does not appear to have been any comment from Commander Simpson, nor the West Midlands Fire Service, after the release of the Employment Tribunal judgment.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “In order to succeed with direct race discrimination cases a Claimant must show that they have been less favourably treated (e.g. dismissed or not promoted etc.) because of their skin colour, nationality, national origin, ethnicity or ethnic origin. If the Claimant isn’t able to show any detrimental treatment as compared to a relevant comparator then their discrimination claim is extremely likely to fail.”

Redmans Solicitors are unfair dismissal solicitors and settlement agreement solicitors based in London