Personal Injury Law Blogs

UK: Whiplash Capital of the World?

Recent reports have branded the UK with the unsavory title of ‘Whiplash Capital of the World’. We’ve even heard the term thrown about at Number 10. But the question remains as to whether or not the statement is in fact founded and whether context should play a part?

We read the likes of Emma Wall, in the Telegraph, telling us how Great Britain has usurped the land of opportunity, America, in fraudulent litigation with a bill exceeding a gargantuan £1billion per year, and we think, well… it must be true. The claims culture fuelled by the aggressive marketing of treacherous personal injury law firms, she goes on to dictate, has infiltrated our borders from the Atlantic. The danger with such frivolous reports and emotive proclamations is that it can often lead to knee-jerk reactions, leaving a trail of damages coupled with significant consequences.  In this particular case, the Jackson Reforms, which include the increased small claims threshold from £1,000 to £5,000; a response to the so-called ‘claims culture’ and ‘whiplash-endemic’ will affect genuine victims on a substantial scale.

And all for what? To save a mere £4 each year on your insurance premium? [According to the ABI].  This hasty move would see a large proportion of sincere claimants, 93% of litigants to be exact, unable to receive legal advice and representation from dedicated and experienced practitioners such as those at DPP Law, meaning they would either decide not to pursue for compensation or indeed face the minefield of a courtroom alone, in which case it is inevitable they will receive markedly less reparation than is deserved. It is important to consider that one may not be so forthright when the table is turned. Never mind the fact that this entire hullabaloo is entrenched in timeworn, biased evidence with a lack of milieu.  Say for instance the figures do stack up and Britons at least, have the weakest necks in Europe, then context must stand as a consideration tool.

According to the World Bank there are 79% more vehicles per kilometre of road compared to the European Average. Thus leading to the conclusion that less high-speed impact crashes occur reducing the number of catastrophic and fatal injuries whilst increasing the production of relatively minor grievances such as whiplash. And how could we forget that British drivers were ordered to ‘Belt-Up’ in 1983? The seat belt legislation was a defining factor in the increase of soft tissue injuries sustained to the neck and spinal area, of which remains today.

Our advice: Don’t believe the hype. Take a look at our whiplash infographic, which challenges the title of UK: Whiplash Capital of the World. It demonstrates some interesting statistics that are often hidden behind more profitable headlines.

Infographic - Whiplash copy

Download the Infographic – Whiplash [PDF version].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work related stress compensation claims

Work related stress can have very serious consequences in terms of your physical and psychological health, but it is not a condition that is particularly well understood in the UK, and especially by a surprising number of employers.

However, back in 2010 the European Heart Journal published an of 6014 British civil servants mapping their health over an 11 year period [ in the snappily titled “Overtime work and incident coronary heart disease: the Whitehall II prospective cohort study”]. The findings of this comprehensive study appears to have confirmed what many scientists have been saying for years – that working the very long hours which are often encouraged in the UK [where, the study confirmed, the average worker’s hours exceeds that of workers in any other EU country], can lead to heart problems on top of stress, sleeping problems, emotional distress and poor digestive functions.

Work related stress arises when people have unpleasant reactions of mind or body to the undue pressure placed upon them in the workplace. It is estimated that 1.5 million people in the UK suffer from work related illnesses each year, of which well over a quarter specifically suffer from work-related stress. Such stress affects different people in a variety of different ways, depending on their individual physical and psychological characteristics, which makes it a particularly difficult condition to understand and confront. However, employers have a responsibility to look for signs that employees may be beginning to succumb to work related stress and must respond accordingly to prevent development of the condition. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a growing trend in the UK for large companies to factor the cost of work related stress compensation claim payouts into their budgets rather than working to resolve the issues that contribute to such stress.

Those who suffer from work related stress may be able to make a claim for compensation provided that they can prove the following:

1. That their employer should have noticed that they were succumbing to work related stress

2. That their employer did not take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that they did not come to harm therefore failing to discharge their legal duty of care to the employee

Whilst these two things may have been obvious to you, they may not have been obvious to the defendant and so proving the grounds for your claim can be extremely difficult in what can be a very subjective field.

Work-related stress claims are never easy, but is for that reason that you will need legal advice from a personal injury solicitor with specialist experience of stress related claims. Appointing the right solicitor means that they can concentrate on winning a swift settlement for you whilst you focus on your recovery safe in the knowledge that your claim is in the safest possible hands.

As part of the evidence in your case, your solicitor will need to instruct one or more independent medical expert to produce a detailed medical reports with regard to your physical and psychological condition in their attempt to prove that any harm you suffered was due to the negligence of your employer..

Tim Bishop is senior partner of Bonallack and Bishop, Solicitors in Salisbury who specialise in accident compensation claims  using no win no fee agreements. Click here for advice on claiming compensation, phone them on 01722 422300 or for more information about using no win no fee agreements, visit their website at  http://solicitorsinsalisbury.co.uk.

Injured on City Property: Can You Sue?

Injured on City Property: Can You Sue?

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t been injured due to another person’s negligence at some point in their life. If these injuries are serious enough, an individual would do well to file a personal injury claim in order to receive compensation for the hardships that they’re likely to experience.

Sadly, there may be times when it’s actually a city’s or municipality’s negligence that causes an injury, and in these special cases, there are a few things that everyone should understand.

Injuries Where a City May be at Fault

There are several instances where a city or municipality may be at fault for an injury. The main point in determining if the city is at fault, as opposed to a private party, is whether or not the property where the accident occurred is owned by the city. These properties can include sidewalks, subways, bus stations and even courtrooms.

Injuries that occur at the aforementioned areas, and any other property owned by a municipality, may put liability on the city. Slips-and-falls, or tripping and falling, are common accidents caused by slippery stairs, potholes and even uneven sidewalks on city government property. While any of these types of accidents may leave the city liable, it’s not as if they’ll just throw money towards someone. An individual will need to do a few things after their accident.

What to do After the Injury

The steps that need to be taken after an injury caused by negligence on the part of a city are much like those that should be taken after an accident that’s caused by a private party. This includes taking photographs of the scene and what caused the accident, getting names of any witnesses who saw the accident and finding immediate medical treatment for the injury.

It’s also vital to hold on to any bills received for medical treatment, and this applies whether or not they’ve been paid. Notify the city of the incident, also, but most people would do well to find an attorney before doing this. Personal injury lawyers will know all of the locale-specific laws that exist, and they’ll know exactly who to notify of the impending claim.

Problems that May Arise

It’s important to recognize that there may be some problems that may arise even if it seems as if a municipality is at fault for an accident. If someone contributed to their own accident, for instance, states that practice contributory negligence will not allow that person to collect any compensation. This means that if a person trips over a crack in the sidewalk, but they were running a bit too fast, the courts may decide that they deserve no compensation. Luckily, only five states practice this negligence rule.

Additionally, a municipality may not actually be at fault when a person thinks that they are. When the I-35W bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, MN., for instance, it was not the municipality that faced serious lawsuits. URS Corporation, a company that supposedly performed faulty fatigue analysis on the bridge, was hit with tens of millions of dollars in settlement costs. Once again, a personal injury attorney like those at the Minneapolis-based DeVore Law Office would be able to recognize who really was at fault in a situation such as the above.

Being injured due to anyone’s negligence can be stressful, but it’s especially disheartening when the neglectfulness of a municipality is the cause of an injury. When this happens, it’s important to know that there are some steps that may be taken to help lessen the burden created by the injury. Taking these steps after the accident and at the scene of the accident, all while avoiding a few specific mistakes, can go a long way in ensuring that a person is well taken care of after falling victim to an injury.

Freelance writer Richard Freeland contributes this article for those who have suffered injury on the grounds of a municipality. The DeVore Law Office is a Minneapolis based personal injury attorney firm committed to diligently fight for the rights of citizens injured in accidents, whether on government or private property.

 

California’s Jewelry Law and Who it Affects

We luckily live in a much more health-conscious world than has been the case historically. This isn’t just in relation to taking care of one’s body; we’ve become much more aware of environmental dangers, as well. For instance, things such as lead-containing paint were strictly regulated once the ill health effects of the substance were discovered. What many people don’t realize, however, is that even jewelry can have dangerous toxins in it. Because of this, it’s important to understand the dangers of shoddy pieces of jewelry and how to avoid them.

What is California’s Metal-Containing Jewelry Law?

After several high-profile events, such as the death of a four-year-old Minnesota child after ingestion of a lead-containing jewelry charm, people quickly became aware of the dangers that certain materials used in both adult and childrens’ jewelry posed. Lead, however, isn’t the only dangerous material that has been used in jewelry. Cadmium-containing jewelry can also lead to serious health consequences.

Although the Federal Government has laws governing the use of substances such as cadmium and lead, California created its own laws in relation to the two substances. When it comes to cadmium, an especially dangerous material for children’s jewelry, any piece must not exceed more than 300 parts-per-million (ppm) of the substance. The amount of lead allowable, on the other hand, can vary between no more than .02 percent to .06 percent of a product’s weight.

Dangers of Certain Metals in Jewelry

California didn’t make these laws on a whim; the simple fact is that cadmium and lead can both have detrimental side effects. Lead, for instance, can lead to organ failure, learning disabilities and even behavioral problems. Cadmium, on the other hand, may lead to diarrhea, kidney damage, vomiting and bone loss issues. Sadly, both of these toxins can lead to death.

Anyone who has gotten sick, or had a child get sick, from lead or cadmium poisoning stemming from cheap jewelry will likely need to get an attorney. The medical costs related to these types of poisoning can skyrocket, and though violators of this California law can face hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fines, that money will not go towards helping an injured party. However, making jewelry with these materials is flat out negligent, and thus, a personal injury case can be brought forward.

Choosing Quality Jewelry

Many jewelers, especially those who sell online, have taken a financial hit because of high-profile recalls. As mentioned before, however, low-priced jewelry isn’t necessarily dangerous. It’s simply important to be vigilant when making these purchases. For instance, it’s important to choose a reputable online company when making these purchases over the Internet. Check for positive reviews from online comments.

 Also, online jewelers have become more dependable with quality because they must meet CA jewelry standards with their products, as outlined in the law, in order to ship within state lines. With this in mind, online jewelers must maintain a higher quality product. With excellent prices found for everything from affordable wedding rings to a pair of earrings, and variety made with quality as designated by today’s laws, shopping online for jewelry is more recommended than in the past.

Additionally, the website www.recalls.gov is a government website that has information on all product recalls. This means that an individual can cross reference whatever they’re about to purchase with a government database. Additionally, when a piece of non-expensive jewelry is purchased, a person should pay attention if it appears silver, but isn’t, and has a heavier weight than anticipated. This could be a sign that lead was used in its production.

It’s important to remember that low-priced jewelry is not synonymous with shady manufacturing practices and dangerous materials. Laws are meant to protect people from dangerous materials that could be used in the jewelry making process, but there is always the chance that a company, retailer or manufacturer could ignore these laws for profit. Those who follow the aforementioned tips, however, will usually be fine. Those who end up injured due to dangerous jewelry, on the other hand, should definitely seek legal help.

Legal writer Lisa Coleman encourages caution when purchasing jewelry, and to take measures to know that what you are purchasing is made with quality. Super Jeweler is a reputable online jeweler than sells a large variety of inexpensive merchandise from affordable wedding rings to watches, necklaces and earrings, for both men and women, and made with beauty and quality.

 

Common causes of scaffolding injuries

The common causes of scaffolding injuries are carelessness and negligence by employers and sometimes by employees. That sounds rather harsh and blunt, but employers are well aware of their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the regulations that followed in the wake of that Act. One piece of legislation in particular could not be more precise when it comes to the actions that are required to keep employees working with scaffolding safe.

Scaffolding injuries – the legal responsibility of employers

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 clearly places responsibility for the health and safety of employees working at height on their employers, managers and supervisors – in fact anybody who control their work. Briefly put, it also states that working at height must be planned, carried out by competent and adequately trained employees and that all risks must be identified and managed. It also states that the equipment used must be appropriate and adequate. Further requirements regarding equipment and personal protective equipment are included in The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.

If all that legislation were not sufficient there is ample high quality guidance regarding working at height from trade organisations and the Health and Safety Executive. Why then are there still so many falls from height, many of them from scaffolding, happening in the UK every day? In one sample year, 2007-2008, 34 out of 74 fatal injuries suffered by construction workers were falls from height – and that was not a particularly bad year for such accidents. The HSE statistics show that approximately 5 construction workers fall from height every single day of the year.

What are the most common scaffolding accidents?

Well, how does all this seemingly systemic negligence and carelessness in scaffolding work reveal itself? Below are some of the most common factors in accidents involving scaffolding:

• Lack of adequate health and safety training for employees working at height. This can lead to unsafe behaviour such as running and jumping whilst on scaffolding platforms or exceeding the weight limits for a particular platform.

• Scaffolding poorly erected by inexperienced workers – this can cause accidents during erection and dismantling such as falls and objects falling from the structure as well as structural collapses when people are working on the scaffolding after construction. Common scaffolding construction faults include missing nuts and bolts, poorly supported bases, loose or cracked connectors and relying for support on a building or even a vehicle.

• Lack of or inadequate weekly inspections of the scaffolding.

• Work being undertaken in bad weather conditions such as snow and ice, heavy rain or high winds.

Health and safety does come with a cost in the form of time and attention to detail and money to ensure the best materials and equipment are used and that training is provided as necessary, but failing to address health and safety also always come with a price tag written, this time, in lost human lives and endless thousands of life changing injuries.

If you have been injured in a scaffolding accident at work, you could be entitled to claim compensation.

Tim Bishop is senior partner of Bonallack and Bishop – specialist Salisbury personal injury solicitors. For more information about how to make a personal injury claim, visit their website at http://www.the-personal-injury-solicitors.co.uk or phone them on 01722 422300.

 

What is Res Ipsa Loquitur?

Res ipsa loquitur, often shortened to just “res ipsa,” is a legal concept that is used in negligence cases to substitute for evidence. Literally translated, it is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.”

Background

Res ipsa is a concept in common law or law based on the idea that judges’ decisions create binding “precedents.” Specifically, it resides in the area of tort law, which deals with wrongs against persons or property over which a plaintiff can sue and recover damages.

Despite being a Latin term, res ipsa was created by a court in England in 1863, and has been in use on both sides of the Atlantic ever since. Res ipsa came about comparatively late – even today some court decisions in the U.S. reference cases from the 14th Century, due to the fact that some see it as an “exception” to established legal principles.

Res Ipsa is Unique

In most tort cases, it is necessary for a plaintiff to prove a defendant was at fault before she or he can be awarded a recovery. The presumption is that just because something bad happened doesn’t mean someone else should be automatically held liable for it if they did not cause it.

However, under res ispa, that presumption is reversed. Fault does not have to be specifically proven, since the fact the event happened in the first place is clear evidence of fault existing somewhere, and all that is left to discover is who was in control of the means by which the damages occurred. As one might figure, res ipsa is only applicable in a limited number of situations that are intrinsically unusual.

A Res Ipsa Hypothetical

For instance, say Person A is driving their car down the street when a piano suddenly falls on top of it, luckily sparing Person A, but totaling their car. It turns out that Person A was driving under Person B’s Piano Emporium at the time; however, no one saw the accident happen or knows why it occurred. Regardless, Person A still sues Person B’s Piano Emporium under res ipsa loquitur. The negligence “speaks for itself”: Pianos are not supposed to simply fall on top of cars, and if one did, then whoever was in control of the piano at the time is liable for the damages to Person A’s car.

Application

Historically, different jurisdictions interpreted the scope of res ipsa in very different ways, or even whether to allow suits to precede on res ipsa claims at all. One of the bigger debates lies in the idea of “exclusive control” of the means of the negligent act. In the hypothetical, the jurisdiction where the piano fell would make a difference as to whether Person A would sue Person B, their employees, the company itself, or all three. In those cases, a judge might take the question of who to sue as a sign that res ipsa is not useable at all, since exclusive control can’t be established.

There is also the question of contributory negligence, especially from the plaintiff. If Person A were illegally driving in the parking lane, for example, some judges would consider that contributory negligence and disallow a res ipsa claim.

Byline

Jonathan Huxley is a freelance writer based in Dallas, Texas who concentrates on legal topics such as Personal Injury, Contracts, Business Law, Patent Law and other topics as well; hammerle.com is an established practitioner in the legal world for those searching for assistance or additional information.

The Most Critical Points of Bicycle Safety

Riding a bicycle is extremely beneficial to both human beings and the environment. It is a great way to get exercise, it is an efficient means of transportation and it is completely sustainable by using no non-renewable resources.

But while riding a bicycle may be convenient and effective, it still requires that the rider adhere to certain safety standards in order to prevent any unnecessary harm or injury. Here are the most important parts of bicycle safety in order to stay on the road and injury free.

Helmet

A bike helmet is the single most important point when discussing bicycle safety. A helmet should be worn by a rider at all times, and should be secured snugly beneath the chin in order to be as effective as possible. While many helmets will be beneficial to safety, such as motorcycle, hockey, or other sports helmets, a regulation bicycle helmet should be worn to provide the safest accessory possible.

Experts claim that while only 18 percent of all bicyclists wear helmets, they are over 80 percent effective in protecting the rider from head or brain injuries. A rider should never leave home without a helmet.

Reflectors

While some riders believe that these are only effective once the sun goes down, reflectors are actually useful during all hours. These shiny devices reflect light back to the source, often alerting cars of oncoming or forward-moving cyclists. For bicyclists riding at night, these great tools make them more visible to other cyclists or automobiles. While they should never replace a light, reflectors are a great way to stay safe when riding in traffic.

Hand Signals

Automobiles are fully equipped with electronic signals that can alert members of traffic of imminent maneuvers – bicyclists aren’t so lucky, though. When turning at an intersection, or even simply off of the road, use your hands to signal your change of direction. A left hand pointed straight out indicates a left turn, and a left hand bent upwards at the elbow indicates a right turn – learning bicycle hand signals can keep you safe on the road as you turn about town.

Lights

Like cars, bicycles should be equipped with lights that can be turned on at all times if necessary. While lights are important during the night, riding during inclement weather can be cause for flipping the switch as well. Riding with a light on the handlebars can be convenient; riding with a headlamp is another hands-free option.

For increased safety, make sure that your bicycle always holds a rear light as well. A rear light can be a great alert to cars that are travelling the same direction as you. When riding at night or during conditions of poor visibility, make sure that your front and rear lights are always present and in good working order to ensure your safety on the road.

Stay Safe!

Riding a bicycle can be a great way to have some fun, get some exercise, and benefit the environment, but it is important to follow certain safety procedures on the road. The next time you head out on two wheels, read over this list to make sure that you stay safe as you pedal away.

Byline

Chris Bentley is a freelance writer who specializes in Personal Injury, Criminal Defense, Constitutional Law, Patent Law, Class Action Lawsuits and other fascinating legal topics.

DUI Breathalyzers- Can They Detect Drugs Also?

Although most people think about alcohol when they hear the phrase “DUI,” this acronym actually stands for driving under the influence of anything that alters your ability to operate a vehicle properly. In other words, you can be arrested for a DUI if you drive after getting drunk or high. However, the breathalyzer tests that are used throughout the U.S. are only able to determine if a driver has alcohol in their system. In order to test for drugs, the police officer has to take a suspect to the hospital or an approved clinic for a blood test.

A New Type of Breathalyzer Test

A Swedish developer has recently unveiled a new breathalyzer test that can detect the presence of 12 controlled substances, including marijuana, heroin, morphine, cocaine and methamphetamine. This revolutionary new device has been tested at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and it successfully detected the presence of drugs on the breath of several patients. If U.S. lawmakers agree to make the usage of these breathalyzers legal in each state, it will have big ramifications for people who indulge in recreational drugs.

Will the New Breathalyzer be Used in America?

It is difficult to say whether or not the U.S. will quickly latch onto the idea of using a breathalyzer test that can determine if a driver is high or drunk. However, the opportunity that this test presents cannot be ignored, and it is likely that these devices will eventually be used across the entire country. After all, this revamped breathalyzer test will make it much easier for a police officer to determine whether or not they should make a DUI arrest. Because DUIs are responsible for approximately 40 percent of all of the annual traffic fatalities, it is in everyone’s best interests for the law enforcement officers to have this tool in their arsenal.

What are the Complications of a Tester Launch?

One of the issues that is certain to complicate the decision of whether or not to legalize the Swedish breathalyzer test is the fact that so many people have been exonerated in the U.S. due to calibration issues with the standard test. After all, if the legal system does not have much faith in the current breathalyzer test, it is certain to cast a wary eye on a device that does not have as much field testing. On the other hand, if Swedish police officers use the new breathalyzer with a high level of success, this might convince U.S. lawmakers to legalize the device for testing purposes.

Regardless of whether an officer uses a standard breathalyzer or the new version, it is important to avoid driving while you are intoxicated. After all, if you are pulled over, you will face a long list of legal and financial issues. It is also important to remember that certain tourist areas, including Orlando, place a big emphasis on arresting drunk drivers. DUI lawyers in Orange County FL see clients who’ve gotten DUI’s on vacation quite often, indicating that everyone who imbibes should always use a designated driver or alternative transportation. However, if you do get arrested for a DUI, it is crucial to call an attorney immediately.

Even if you consume marijuana legally, you are still required to stay away from the driver’s seat while you are under the influence. In other words, if the new breathalyzer is legalized and it indicates you have marijuana in your system, you can still get a DUI. If you are required to take a drug test, the Macujo method is a way to remove traces of cocaine, weed, and alcohol from hair. The process entails a mixture of baking soda and apple cider vinegar. More on that here: https://www.anpud.org/blog/macujo-jerry-g-method/

Author Anthony Joseph likes writing about new technology advancements in the field of law enforcement. DUI lawyers in Orange County FL from the firm of Katz & Phillips have both the knowledge and experience it takes to win DUI cases. The laws in Florida can be strict, but having a DUI attorney can ensure that you’re being protected all the way around.

Three firms heavily fined after flying gas canister kills man

Three large firms have been heavily fined after a man was struck and killed by a pressurised gas canister.

Three South East firms have been ordered to pay almost £700,000 in fines and costs after a plumber was killed and six other people were seriously injured by dozens of flying gas cylinders.

Mr Adam Johnston, 38, was working on a construction project in Mundells, Herfordshire, as a plumber when the accident happened on 5 November 2008. He was walking with a colleague from one site to another when he was struck by an argonite gas cylinder, causing him serious injuries. He later died of these injuries.

A Health and Safety Executive investigation was then started into the matter. This investigation found that 80 cylinders at the site had been stored without their protection caps – which are critical to the safety of the cylinders – and that they had been left without being properly secured at the site. These cylinders were filled with high-pressure argonite and were intended to be used for fire suppression at the new storage facility that was being built. It was determined that Crown House Technologies Ltd was the principal contractor for the construction work on the site and that it had engaged Kidde Fire Protection Services Ltd to supply and install the fire suppression equipment. The work was actually carried out by Kidde Products Ltd.

The Health and Safety Executive investigation determined that one or more of the companies was responsible for the serious health and safety breaches which had led to the death of one worker and serious physical and psychological injuries caused by the malfunctioning of the argonite cylinders on 5 November 2008. The investigation therefore recommended that a criminal prosecution be commenced.

The matter came before the St Albans Crown Court on 5 July 2013. Crown House Technologies Ltd pleaded guilty to a brach of s.2 and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £165,000 as well as being ordered to pay a contribution to the prosecution’s costs of £56,696.62. Kidde Fire Protection Services Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulations 6 and 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were also fined £165,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £59,696.62. Kidde Products Ltd also pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2 and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were also fined £165,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £59,696.62.

No comment could be found from any of the companies’ criminal defence lawyers.

A HSE inspector, Mr Norman Macritchie, commented after the prosecution that: “Mr Johnston had no control over the chain of events which led to his tragic death. He died while going about his business as a result of the shortcomings of others. It is only by chance that this incident did not cause further fatalities.”

Marc Hadrill, a personal injury solicitor at Redmans, commented: “Breaches of health and safety can cause injuries – and potentially even death, as here – to innocent employees and third parties. Employers therefore have an understandable obligation to minimise the risk that their workplaces pose to the safety and welfare of employees and third parties.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer to put you in touch with expert unfair dismissal solicitors and settlement agreement solicitors

Birmingham builders prosecuted by HSE after asbestos failings

Two Birmingham-based builders have been successfully prosecuted after they seriously breached health and safety regulations.

The two self-employed builders, Mr Harnek Ram and Mr Gulzar Singh, were prosecuted by the HSE after they illegally removed and broke up asbestos panels outside a home in Handsworth, exposing the homeowners and themselves to asbestos.

The builders were working on the site in Handsworth last year between 19 and 25 May. The householder, who had received a grant from Birmingham City Council to carry out the work to convert his garage into a bedroom and bathroom for his disabled father, employed Mr Ram and Mr Singh, trading as “G Builders”. Prior to the work being commenced the Council had taken a sample from the panels of the house on which work was to be done in order to test for asbestos but the results of the sample were only received after Mr Ram and Mr Singh had broken up the panels.

A Health and Safety Executive investigation was subsequently undertaken. This investigation found that Mr Singh and Mr Ram lacked the necessary licences to authorise them to remove asbestos boards and they failed to take any of the necessary steps relating to asbestos, such as carrying out or asking to see an asbestos survey of the premises before they commenced work. The investigation recommended that the builders be prosecuted for failing to take steps to safeguard both their and other person’s safety.

The matter came before the Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4 July 2013. The court heard evidence from the HSE that the builders had failed to take adequate steps to prevent both exposure to and the spread of the asbestos fibres which were generated by their breaking up the panels.

The two builders, Mr Harnek Ram and Mr Gulzar Singh, pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Mr Ram was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay a contribution to the prosecution’s costs of £1,200. Mr Singh was also fined £2,000 and ordered to pay the same contribution to the costs of the prosecution.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Failing to take proper health and safety precautions when dealing with any dangerous substance – whether it be asbestos or anything else – could have serious repercussions for both those carrying out the work and people in the immediate vicinity. Failing to take such steps can therefore result – as it did here – in a criminal prosecution.”

HSE inspector Mr Gareth Langston commented after the hearing: “An estimated 70% of properties contain asbestos. It is illegal to undertake any work which will disturb the fabric of the building without carrying out and obtaining the results of an asbestos survey.”

Redmans Solicitors offer compromise agreement advice and employment law advice to employees and employers