Personal Injury Law Blogs

Dangerous Professions that Pay Very, Very Well

Dangerous ProfessionsSome people are drawn to a dangerous job or career path because they are adventurous thrill seekers, while others may gravitate to the same profession because it pays well and doesn’t require a college degree. Obviously not every high risk job is going to be open to those without a college degree, but there is a surprising number of $50K+ careers where experience is preferred over a college education. Here’s a list of five extremely hazardous vocations that pay well, some requiring a degree and some may even require you to contact an estate attorney.

 Airplane Repossession

Yes, this is a job, and yes, it can be dangerous. It’s different than vehicle repossession, which is a dangerous job in and of itself, because airplane repossession involves dealing with the private bodyguards of the wealthy, estate trespassing issues, airport security, airplane safety (has it been maintained? can it even be flown?) and a litany of other obstacles. The pay is great, though. It’s commission-based, so depending on the planes value, a person in this line of work can earn between $10,000 and $90,000 per job.

Airplane Pilot

Speaking of flying, airplane pilots themselves have dangerous jobs, especially those who fly private aircraft. Not only is the job dangerous, but liability is a big factor as well. If a pilot does crash, but survives the plane accident, he or she faces the danger of litigation. For example, if a pilot crash landed at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas, he could expect to hear from a Houston wrongful death attorney, regardless of whether or not he did everything right. Just as driving a vehicle with passengers carries an inherent risk of liability, so does flying an airplane.

Of course, there are many other risks involved. There are so many dangers, in fact, that compared to the 2012 overall average number of work-related deaths in the U.S. (3.2 for every 100,000), the airplane pilot’s average was an incredible 56.1 per 100,000. The job does pay well though. The average commercial airplane pilot earns about $92,000 a year.

Oil Rig Worker

An oil rig worker has a job that is dangerous and dirty, but the job appeals to so many people because a college degree isn’t required. It does help when it comes to salary though. In 2011, oil rig workers earned an average of a little more than $99,000 a year. Drilling consultants earned well over $200K, but even those who had been on the job for less than a year earned just under $70K on average. 

FBI Agent

For obvious reasons, a career as an FBI agent is dangerous. Always out to catch the bad guy, agents intentionally put themselves in the line of fire. While there are a lot of desk duties involved, the nature of the pursuit is what makes this one of the most dangerous in the United States. An FBI agent’s salary isn’t bad, with trainees earning about $51,000 a year while in the academy, and then between about $61K and $70K with their first assignment. If the agent is assigned to an area that has a higher than average cost of living (New York, San Francisco), they may also receive a one-time relocation payment of approximately $22,000. 

Private Security Contractor

Another dangerous profession that pays well is that of a private security contractor (PSC). Most PSC’s have strong military backgrounds, including special operations. The location and nature of most of the job assignments (protecting diplomats, etc in war zones) makes this an especially dangerous profession since, like an FBI agent, a private security contractor intentionally puts him or herself in the line of fire. Depending on the assignment, and location and experience of the individual, a PSC can earn up to $1,000 a day. The jobs aren’t always consistent and often there are no benefits attached, but for someone looking for a career of adventure and peril, this just may be it.

A job that is inherently dangerous isn’t for the faint of heart. Sometimes they come in the form of property owner neglect and sometimes they’re just obvious. Some of the vocations listed can be considered blue collar, some are white collar, and some don’t require a collar at all. No matter how the jobs are categorized, though, they all have two things in common – they are incredibly dangerous and they pay very well because of it.

 

Leisure centre firm fined £45,000 after burns at swimming pool

The owner of an Essex leisure centre has been heavily fined by the Crown Court after a child suffered serious burns in an accident at its premises in 2012.

Leisure Connection Limited was fined £45,000 and ordered to pay substantial costs after a toddler was severely burned at their leisure centre in Great Dunmow, Essex in February 2012.

On the day in question – 18 February 2012 – the toddler slipped and fell on his bottom at the leisure centre. He unfortunately fell on a drain which had recently been cleaned with sodium hydroxide and that hadn’t been rinsed down properly afterwards. This caused the chemical – which is designed to dissolve grease and hair in drains – to burn through the toddler’s skin, causing him third-degree burns to his buttocks and the back of his right thigh. This injury meant that the toddler had to be rushed to hospital, where he stayed ten days and was obliged to undergo a skin graft. It is not currently known whether the toddler’s family has made a claim for personal injury after the accident.

The Health and Safety Executive subsequently investigated and found that the company had failed to put a safe system of work in place for cleaning the drain, including a failure to delineate whose responsibility it was to clean the drain and how the drain should be cleaned. It was further found that the company had failed to properly train staff in the use of the chemicals. The HSE therefore recommended that a prosecution of the company go ahead.

The case came before the Chelmsford Crown Court on 5 December 2013. Leisure Connection Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £45,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs to the sum of £20,746. Neither the firm nor its criminal defence solicitors appear to have commented on the matter after the release of the verdict.

An HSE Inspector, Kim Tichias, stated after the court released its sentencing: “Leisure centre operators have a duty to ensure that members of the public of all ages can enjoy their facilities safely. This includes putting the appropriate training and system of work in place to manage the risks of using cleaning chemicals.”

Marc Hadrill, a personal injury solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Organisations have a duty to not only protect their employees from harm to their health, safety and welfare, but also have a general duty to members of the public to ensure that their premises are as safe as reasonably practicable in the circumstances.”

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors and can help injured workers claim personal injury if they’ve been injured in an accident at work

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

Lincolnshire firm fined by courts after fall from height

A Lincolnshire firm has been fined by the Lincoln Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution after a worker was seriously injured in a fall at work this year.

Timmins Engineering and Construction Limited was fined £4,000 after an unnamed 30-year-old worker suffered a broken back after a fall from height on 17 January 2013.

On the day in question the worker, who was employed by Timmins Engineering and Constructions Limited, was working on replacing fibre cement sheets on a storage building with prepared steel sheets, using a variety of equipment. Part of the way through installing the metal sheets, the worker stepped on one of the cement sheets. This was not strong enough to support his weight and fractured, causing him to fall to the floor below. He managed to land on his feet but then fell on his back, with his vertebra taking the impact. It is not currently known whether the worker has or will claim personal injury against his employer.

The Health and Safety Executive investigated the accident and found that there had been a number of serious health and safety violations by the company, including the fact that although the work had been planned, it was an extremely unsafe method of working and the firm had failed to mitigate against the risks of the danger of working with fragile material. It therefore recommended that the firm be prosecuted for health and safety breaches.

The case came before the Lincoln Magistrates’ Court on 12 December 2013, with Timmins Engineering and Construction Limited pleading guilty to two separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The firm was therefore fined £4,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs to the amount of £985.

Neither Timmins Engineering and Construction Limited nor their criminal defence solicitors appear to have commented on the case since the sentencing.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers have an obligation to ensure that the method of work that their employees is undertaking is safe – in this case a worker was injured because the firm employing failed to ensure that the method of work was in fact safe.”

HSE Inspector Mr Chris Copeman stated after the sentencing: “The worker sustained a serious injury that could have been avoided had a safer system of work been used for removing the fragile sheets. The risk of serious or even fatal injury is high and eminently foreseeable with this type of work, and it is vital that the correct equipment and methods are in place.”

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors who can help you claim personal injury if you’ve been injured in an accident at work

The facts about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

As figures emerge which suggest that one in five veterans suffer from the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. CBD has shown great promise as treatment for people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, you can find high-quality CBD products at https://cbdarmour.co.uk/cbd-oil.html. It also appears that there are a number of myths and misnomers which surround the condition.

Not only do these myths make it difficult for those suffering with PTSD to cope with their everyday lives, but also make it difficult for those with little experience of the condition to have empathy for those suffering.

Myth 1

One of the first myths is that only people returning from active service suffer from PTSD whilst other people who have experienced traumatic situations do not. Evidence suggests that people who have been the victims of violent crimes or situations, those who have been involved in accidents or incidents which left them or others with injuries, and those who have suffered sudden bereavements as the result of sudden or traumatic situations are just as likely to suffer from PTSD as veterans and those returning from active service. In fact, people from everyday lives are just as likely to make Post Traumatic Stress Disorder claims as those from a military background.

Myth 2

There are four main groups of symptoms of PTSD and as a result, many people have the mistaken belief that a sufferer will have all four.

The first is re-experience which is to say nightmares, flashbacks or having triggers which can bring about a memory. The second is avoidance which is where the sufferer refuses or is unwilling to discuss, consider or be exposed to anything which reminds them of the event in question. Thirdly there is avoidance of social situations, lack of trust and detachment and finally there is arousal which is where a sufferer can be seen to be on a constant state of alert. They may have insomnia, over-reactions to stimulus, may be agitated or unable to rest.

Because these are the main symptoms, it is expected that all people suffering from PTSD will suffer from all four groups of symptoms. However, just as some pregnant women experience sickness and others don’t, people with PTSD don’t all show the same symptoms and individuals may experience them to varying degrees.

Myth 3

There is a very common misconception that everyone suffering from PTSD will be violent or exhibit a poor temperament. This has been mis-proven and psychologists now believe that a person with PTSD is no more likely to exhibit violent or erratic behaviour than anyone else.

Myth 4

The final myth relates to the potential for the future. Many people with inadequate information on head injury claims might believe that once a person has PTSD they will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives. However, just as many other psychological disorders, such as depression, anxiety and stress may be cured with the right treatment, as can PTSD. Many of the people suffering now may, through the correct treatment which can be procured through Blackwater Law in Essex as part of a PTSD claim, go on to lead a full and enjoyable life free of their symptoms.

Personal Injury firms need to change their ways to survive

The Jackson Reforms 2013 are so-called for Lord Justice Jackson who was tasked with preparing a report in which he reviewed the costs of civil litigation and assessed how they affected access to justice.

These changes came into force in April 2013, and have seen major changes to the way in which litigation cases, such as personal injury are heard and determined.

The changes

Jackson proposed a number of changes and for the majority these have come into force. In chief, he determined that referral fees should be abolished, that conditional fee agreements should change, that contingency fees should change, that damages should be more highly awarded but that the amount solicitors can charge for successful claims should be capped at 25% of the received amount, and that the amount for certain injuries should be capped to prevent excessive claims being sought.

The reaction

Prior to the introduction of the Jackson reforms 2013, there was some concern as to how personal injury firms like Blackwater Law would handle the new regulations.

Of course, the main aim of the reforms was to ensure that whilst those firms, such as Blackwater Law who upheld the morality of PI law, would succeed whilst the less reputable firms who have damaged the reputation of the industry would be unable to operate.

However, as the changes have taken place, many of the leading personal injury firms have suggested that even the more reputable firms need to amend their policy and actions in order to survive post-Jackson.

Key among these is David Marshall, the Managing Partner of Anthony Gold. Mr Marshall told firms they must “get big, get niche or get out” if they are to survive the changes. He suggested that the firms who continued with business as usual could lose up to 40% of their income leaving them without profits.

In addition, whilst many firms have reported little changes in their profits, accounts or business, Mr Marshall suggested that many of these may be relying on cases they took on prior to the Jackson reforms 2013, and prior to any of the other warnings issued by personal injury news forums.

Get big

Key among Mr Marshall’s directions is for firms to “get big”. He believes that those firms who merge with claims management companies and create a commoditised business could see a 400% increase in their volume of work. He also suggests that these firms could save on large wages bills by employing less qualified staff and more information technology.

Get niche

His second suggestion was that firms create themselves a niche market. They could do this, he claims, either by way of a boutique firm or a back to basics local firm. In his boutique model, the firm would specialise in certain areas such as military claims or abuse cases, abandoning other work in favour. In comparison, a back to basics business model would see the firm focusing on local areas and personal service.

Mr Marshall seems under no illusions about the effect that either of these ideas, or the overall notion of the Jackson Reforms 2013 will have on the Personal Injury industry: “We are going to be earning a hell of a lot less per case,” Marshall said. “The whole system is designed to ensure that.”

Tesla Sparks Serious Product Liability Issues

Tesla Motors has made quite a spark in the news recently. With two electric cars catching fire in the U.S. since October, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began a probe for more information.

The NHTSA requested information about design modifications and engineering drawings for the Model S electric sedan. Tesla has until Jan. 14 to provide this information for the investigation to continue.

Regulators have asked Tesla to detail the consequences of battery pack damage, which has causes the fires, and how the company addressed such problems in their designs of the Model S.

After an influx of media coverage regarding the fires, Tesla shares dropped by 25 percent since Oct. 1, but have roared back 16.5 percent.

Tesla is a perfect example of product liability cases and how consumers can be protected against the failures of major companies. In the case of vehicles, drivers can sue companies for major issues, especially issues that are due to flawed design or faulty parts.

Some personal injury lawyers specialize in product liability law and help consumers claim compensation when they’ve been injured or their property has been damaged. Every year, major vehicle manufacturers issue recalls, such as Toyota and Honda, for faulty parts that can cause serious issues for drivers.

While Tesla vehicles aren’t in a wide market, other vehicles are recalled by the masses and those vehicles could cause harm to the average driver. In such a case, a personal injury lawyer who practices product liability law should be contacted. Statutes limit the amount of time to claim, so drivers do not have an infinite amount of time to claim for compensation.

Speeding Fine Penalty Fees Set to Rise

Under new proposals from Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, speeding fines could rise from £60 to as much as £100. This 66% increase has been suggested as a solution to the £50 million funding gap for crime victims. Approximately £20 from each speeding fine will go towards helping the victims of motor accidents. This is bad news for motorists that are caught driving above the speed limit. Sixty quid is bad enough, but £100? That’s a lot of money.

Further Changes

Even drivers that are caught tailgating, braking suddenly, or cutting-up other motorists, could find themselves subject to fines. Anything that is considered ‘careless driving’ could become an immediately finable offence, to save the police force and the government on paperwork, since police officers have the authority for this, and that’s why many people want to become a police officer to keep the order in the streets, and they can by performing a police testing wa which is the first step for this.

Drivers without insurance could face a rise in the £200 fine to £300. It’s thought that the government can convey the seriousness of the crime through increasing the fine sums.

According to a speeding ticket attorney it’s not just speeding fines that are changing. Any driving offence that carries a £60 penalty (for example, not wearing a seatbelt and using a mobile while driving) could increase to anywhere between £80 and £100.

The Victims

The victim’s surcharge raises £10 million a year for the Government, but considering that it demands more than £66 million in payouts a year, it barely makes a dent. The new move to increase speeding fines aims to cover some of this shortfall.

Another proposal, currently being considered, is that all sentenced criminals will face a surcharge levy, regardless of their crime. The amount would obviously depend on the severity of the offence and would begin at £20, but could possibly reach £120 for more serious crimes.

The £120 levy could be enforced if anyone was sent to jail for two years or more. Those who were sent to prison for less than this amount of time, would have to pay a £80 charge.

Any Further Changes?

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) is also under threat – this is a taxpayer-funded benefit that allows criminals to claim compensation for becoming a victim themselves. For example, many prisoners are severely injured in prison.

In 2012, more than 3,000 prisoners claimed CICS compensation. This accounted for £75 million in payouts over the last decade. Within this timeframe, more than 20,000 prisoners have benefited.

However, Kenneth Clarke is adamant that those who suffer mild injuries in prison should not be entitled to lump sum compensatory payouts. Instead, politicians will target those who have suffered greater injuries (which is code for ‘we don’t want to pay for this anymore; we’ll take away as many benefits as we possibly can’).

And the money-leeching doesn’t stop there. Yet more proposals call for further adjustments in the law. At the moment, the Government deducts £5 a week from the benefits of anyone who commits an offence. However, this amount may rise to £25, to make offenders pay more for their crimes – nevertheless, a UK road offence firm, drivingoffence.com on their speeding page have specific guidelines on the matter.

The Number of Claims Companies Reduces

As the majority of people operating within personal injury claims are aware, one of the biggest problems facing the industry right now is that of fraudulent claims and the unscrupulous companies who make them on behalf or both suspecting and unsuspecting clients.

Of course, for every company and person who makes a fraudulent or enlarged claim, there are just as many who are operating within the law. However, with these over-inflated claims pushing up insurance prices, giving personal injury solicitors Kent a bad name and undermining the industry as a whole, it seems only right that something be done to tackle the problem, sooner rather than later.

The Government Solution

To that end, the Government, via the Ministry of Justice, have announced a series of several measures which they hope will discourage poor quality claims, as well as the people who make them.

Key among these are cutting legal aid, changing the way that evidence is given and presented in cases such as whiplash and limiting the amount that can be claimed for certain injuries and accidents.

However, the Government has also announced a consultation to introduce further measures, including proposed fines for unscrupulous companies,. It is their hope that these measures will add further regulation to the industry and improve the reputation of Kent lawyers who are merely trying to get the best possible solution for their clients

The moves and the consultation are all part of the Ministry of Justices’ Conduct Rules which were introduced in July and apply to all solicitors and law firms in Kent. However, whilst it has been stressed that the reason for the Conduct Rules is to tighten up an industry with little regulation those legitimate Kent Solicitors who take their reputation and their clients’ wishes seriously should have little to worry about and few additional responsibilities.

At the same time as the introduction, an interesting trend has also emerged – the number of claims management companies closing their business.

A loss of 38%

A report compiled by the Ministry of Justice has found that despite the personal injury sector remaining the largest with 1485 firms regulated and 2350 in total, there has been a significant drop in the number of companies practising.

In fact, the latest personal injury news shows that within the last year, 38% of UK claims management companies have ceased trading. In addition, the report also showed that the total revenue of the PI sector has also dropped significantly, by 22% in the same period.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the closures and the additional measures coinciding are purely coincidental, saying “Most of the CMCs that have exited the market were small businesses, which had either ceased trading altogether or were focusing on the credit hire/bent metal aspects of accident management.”

The report went on to say “Six months into the ban, we have observed a shift in business practices. CMCs have amended their models to make them compliant with the ban, using for example, marketing schemes and service agreements.”

 

Car Accident Assistance in Unconventional Places

In a report issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were more than 5.3 million police-reported automobile accidents in 2011. This number increased to just over 5.6 million in 2012. This doesn’t include the number of collisions in which drivers do not involve the police. Crashes resulting in injuries rose from 1.53 million to 1.63 million, and fatalities rose form more 29,867 to 30,800.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners surveyed a number of men and women to see how many know exactly what to do if there is an accident. Surprisingly, many were uncertain. Even if you do know, shock often sets in following an accident and that makes it hard to do the right thing. With both the rate of motor vehicle accidents and accidents involving injuries or fatalities on the rise, it’s especially important to know what to do if you are in an accident and to make sure you don’t miss anything during this stressful situation. Today, there are auto accident apps that help you out.

Information Needed After a Car Accident

Following an accident, providing you are not injured, you need to move your vehicle to avoid blocking traffic. Before doing so, take photos of the cars in the post-crash positions. Take the pictures from all angles. If you cannot move the cars, police will take photos, though you still may want your own copies for your insurance company.

Take the other driver’s name and insurance information. You also need the make, model, and license plate for the other driver’s vehicle. Giving out your home address or driver’s license number puts you at risk for fraud.

If there are witnesses, get their names and phone numbers. If an officer shows up, take that officer’s name, contact information, and badge number. You also want to get a copy of the accident report either at the scene or from the officer at the police station. Finally, note the weather conditions, road conditions, and circumstances leading up to the accident.

As you can see, that’s a lot of information to remember to collect. This is why an auto accident app is essential.

Car Accident Report

Car Accident Report is available for iPhone users. Once you download the free app, you can store personal information so that if there is a crash and you are unable to communicate, officers can pull up your data and have the information they need to contact your loved ones and primary care doctor. If you’re not injured, the app walks you through a checklist of information you need to gather. You can access GPS to pinpoint the exact accident location. It also works with your iPhone camera to get photos of the accident scene to add to the accident report.

Help, I Crashed My Car

Help, I Crashed My Car is a free auto accident app for the Android user. In addition to the assistance in gathering information and taking photos, it also directs you to the nearest car rental companies and auto mechanics.

WreckCheck

Many state department of insurance boards suggest drivers download WreckCheck, an auto accident app that the National Association of insurance Commissioners created. WreckCheck guides you into collecting the information you need, gives tips on remaining calm following the accident, and even creates an accident report that you can email to your insurance company and yourself.

Prepare yourself for an unexpected auto accident in advance, make sure to always have a contact of a car accident attorney. Having a vehicle accident app installed on your smartphone ensures you have the guidance you need to get through this stressful time. Best of all, these apps do not cost you anything, so there is nothing keeping you from installing a car crash app today.

Byline: John Burke writes on everything technology-related, including smartphone law apps

Roofer prosecuted after grandmother and grandson burnt with bitumen

A High Wycombe-based builder has been fined by the Redhill Magistrates’ Court after it was found that health and safety breaches by him had caused or contributed to serious injury to a grandmother and her 21-month-old grandson.

Self-employed roofer Mr John Terrell, 50, had been contracted to felt a flat roof and in order to complete the job it was necessary to use bitumen. The bitumen was melted at ground level and then carried up a ladder in a bucket to the roof where it was being applied. Several trips up the ladder had been made without incident but on one of the trips up the ladder slipped just as the unidentified grandmother approached the roofers with her grandson to ask whether they wanted a cup of tea. The bucket of bitumen that was being carried up the ladder fell directly on to the grandmother and grandson and they sustained burn injuries to their head, face and lower body. They were hospitalized for a number of weeks by the accident.

The Health and Safety Executive were informed of the accident and subsequently investigated. This investigation found that there had been health and safety breaches by Mr Terrell, including a failure to put in place a safe system of work and a failure to supply suitable equipment to enable the work to be carried out safely (the ladder was in poor condition with missing or badly worn rubber feet. A prosecution of Mr Terrell was therefore recommended.

The case came to the Redhill Magistrates’ Court on 25 November 2013. Mr Terrell pleaded guilty to a breach of s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,100, as well as being ordered to pay £1,335 in costs.

HSE Inspector Amanda Huff stated after the judgment: “Extreme caution must be taken at all times when working with bitumen because it can be incredibly harmful – as the grandmother and her young grandson can sadly testify. John Terrell didn’t take extreme care. He was using a ladder with clearly visible defects that wasn’t properly secured, and they sustained horrific burns as a result.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented on the case: “Businesses have obligations under UK health and safety legislation to ensure that they take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that neither workers nor third parties are injured because of workplace practices. The HSE clearly felt in this instance that Mr Terrell hadn’t taken reasonably practicable steps.”

Redmans Solicitors are unfair dismissal solicitors offering settlement agreement advice to employees and employers