Personal Injury Law Blogs

Worker entitled to make claim against employer after he fell eighteen feet from a platform

A South Wales worker could launch a personal injury claim against his employer after he was knocked almost twenty feet from the platform he was standing , suffering serious injuries as a result.

A worker could make a claim for personal injury against his employer – an engineering farm – after the fall from height last year.

The incident occurred on 14 January 2012 when the worker – who asked not to be named – was using a scissor crane to replace high level lights in the workshop of a South Wales engineering firm, Dollcast Ltd. The worker suffered serious injuries as a result, including five broken ribs, injuries to his elbow and damage to his hip.

The Health and Safety Executive subsequently investigated the case after it was brought to its attention. This investigation recommended that a prosecution be initiated against Dollcast under s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, namely that the company had failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that persons not in its employment who may have been affected by the undertakings were not exposed to risks to their health and safety”.

The case came before the Brigend Magistrates Court on 13 May 2013. The court heard that the self-employed contractor had been carrying out his duties on the scissor crane when an adjacent gantry creane had knocked into the scissor crane, knocking the worker to the floor. The HSE’s investigation found that there was not a suitable system of work in place and that a suitable risk assessment hadn’t been carried out and that there hadn’t been an attempt to isolate the gantry crane from the work conducted by the scissor crane.

The Magistrates Court found the company guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 after the company pleaded guilty. Dollcast Ltd was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £9,671.

Marc Hadrill, a solicitor at Redmans employment solicitors, commented on the case that “falls from height can be particularly serious for those affected – that’s why there are specific regulations to deal with them. Employers have a legal obligation – but also arguably a moral obligation – to ensure that their workers don’t suffer injury through fault on the part of the employer.”

HSE inspector Lee Schilling issued the following statement on the case: “This was a serious incident and, in a fall of six metres, this worker was lucky not to have lost his life. It was also needless and avoidable. The incident could have easily been prevented if a simple, suitable system of work had been used by Dollcast, including the secure isolation of the overhead crane from its power supply.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer compromise agreement advice from specialist employment solicitors

Rochdale firm fined over multiple health and safety warnings

A Rochdale bedding firm has been heavily fined by the Manchester Crown Court after a health and safety investigation found that a number of the machines in its factory were not safe to use.

Sartex Quilts and Textiles Ltd was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) last year on 27 and 28 October 2012 in a routine investigation. The HSE found that there were dozens of guards missing from machines and that a number of the guards that were there were simply not fit for purpose. The inspectors also found that one machine – which contained dangerous moving parts – had been wrapped in cardboard to prevent workers having access to these parts – a fact which was condemned as “inadequate” by the Health and Safety Executive.

The HSE investigation resulted in a recommendation that the company be prosecuted for a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 – that the company had failed, so far as was reasonably practicable, to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all its employees.

The health and safety failings were doubly serious for Sartex Quilts as they could also have been exposing themselves to a claim for personal injury from any worker that was potentially injured.

The case came before the Manchester Crown Court on 12 June 2013. The court heard that the HSE had issue three Prohibition Notices – which order that some work must be stopped immediately – and twelve Improvement Notices which ordered that certain changes be made to equipment or working practices.

The Manchester Crown Court found the company guilty of the a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 after the company admitted such. The court fined the company a total of £50,000 and ordered it to pay £14,614 towards the costs of the prosecution.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case that “judging by the comments of the HSE inspector in this case, this was a particularly serious breach of health and safety laws. Thankfully no-one was hurt but things could have turned out very differently if there had been an accident at work because of a lack of the necessary guards.

An HSE inspector, Ms Helen Mansfield, gave the following statement after the case: “This was one of the worst cases of missing or inadequate guards I or my colleagues have ever seen. Every corner we turned, we found another issue. The company put production before health and safety and put the lives of its employees in danger as a result. Common sense should have meant they didn’t use cardboard to cover dangerous moving parts, but that’s exactly what we found on one machine”.

Redmans Solicitors offer employment law advice to employers and employees

Death from skip lorry results in an extremely heavy fine for Sheffield company

A Sheffield-based firm has been heavily fined and ordered to pay substantial costs after one of its workers was killed in a workplace accident.

Adis Scaffolding Limited, of Sheffield, was ordered by the Derby Crown Court to pay a substantial fine and the costs of the prosecution after one of its workers was killed by an overturned lorry in its site in Markham Lane, Duckmanton.

The accident which resulted in Mr David Vickers’ death occurred on 22 July 2008. Mr Vickers, 37, worked for Avis Scaffolding as a truck driver and had just driven in to and parked his truck at the Markham Lane site. He had climbed out of the cab of the truck to deploy the rear stabilisers for the truck when it suddenly overturned and landed on top of him, crushing him. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

It is not currently known whether Mr Vickers’s family is intending to claim personal injury against the company.

The Health and Safety Executive was subsequently notified of the accident and commenced an investigation into the death. This investigation recommended that a prosecution be initiated and the matter came before the Derby Crown Court last week on 7 June 2013. The Crown Court heard evidence that the skip was mis-hooked, with the hooks attached to the wrong part of the skip. This had caused the skip to break free when it had reached an angle of 70 degrees, with the skip swinging free and causing the front of the vehicle to be lifted off the ground. This was deemed by the HSE to be a clear breach of health and safety. The HSE also found that there was no safe system of work for the skip operation; inadequate training and instruction; and that an inadequate risk assessment for the loading and unloading of skips.

Adis Scaffolding pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, namely that they had failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all its employees. The Derby Crown Court sentenced the company to pay a £300,000 fine and ordered the company to pay the prosecution’s costs of £124,468.

An inspector at the Health and Safety Executive, Mr Edward Walker, made the following statement: “The failings by Adis Scaffolding Limited were substantial, ranging from unsuitable equipment, an inadequate risk assessment, inadequate training and instruction, and an absence of safe systems of work”.

Chris Hadrill, an employment law solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This is a particularly serious breach of health and safety in the workplace – it resulted in the death of a worker, something that any employer should also seek strenuously to avoid. The Health and Safety Executive identified numerous breaches that led to the death of the worker and his death – combined with the lax health and safety regime – resulted in the relatively large fine visited on the company”.

Redmans offer compromise agreement advice and are based in London

Bolton recycling firm heavily fined after worker crushed between vehicles

A paper manufacturer based in northern England has been heavily fined after one of its workers was seriously injured in an accident.

A Bolton-based firm has been heavily fined and ordered to pay substantial costs after the Manchester Crown Court found that it was guilty of seriously breaching health and safety laws, resulting in a severe injury to a worker.

The unnamed 61-year-old worker worked for the Bolton-based DS Smith Paper Ltd as a truck-driver until the incident that resulted in the injury occurred on 26 February 2010.

The Manchester Crown Court heard that the worker had driven into the tipping area depot on 26 February 2010 and had just unloaded his load of paper. He exited the truck to close the rear doors, doing so by using two buttons on the side of the vehicle. However, as he did this another truck reversed into the tipping area through a different entrance and – not seeing the worker – trapped him between both vehicles. This resulted in serious injuries to the worker, including fractured ribs, a fractured right collar bone, a punctured right lung and multiple bruising.

The Health and Safety Executive were subsequently informed of the accident and an investigation was started into the circumstances of the injury. This investigation resulted in a recommendation that DS Smith Paper be prosecuted for a breach of the Workspace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 for failing to make sure that the site was safe for vehicles and pedestrians. Under Regulation 17(1) of the Workspace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 every workplace should be organised in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles can circulate in a safe manner.

The case came before the Manchester Crown Court this month and a judgment was given yesterday by the court. DS Smith Paper Ltd was found guilty of a breach of Regulation 17(1) of the Workspace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and was sentenced to pay a fine of £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £49,822, as well as bearing its own costs.

It is not currently known whether the 61-year-old worker is intending to submit a personal injury claim against his employer.

Marc Hadrill, a solicitor at Redmans employment solicitors, commented on the case that “employers have strong obligations to ensure that the health and safety of its employees is not compromised by the design of its workplace. This case demonstrates that employers are potentially liable to both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits if they fail to take the necessary reasonably practicable steps to ensure that their workforce isn’t endangered by poor working practices”.

A Health and Safety Executive inspector, Mr David Norton, commented after the hearing that “the driver suffered horrific injuries as a result of this negligence, and this case should serve as a lesson to other companies working with large vehicles to ensure that the correct safety procedures are in place”.

Direct 2 Lawyers can put you in touch with solicitors who can offer you employment law advice

Tips for Sharing the Road with Motorcycles in Virginia

Many motorists are unaware of certain laws and safety practices that ensure safe driving when motorcycles are on the road. While there are rules that motorcycle drivers must follow, there are things that drivers of cars, trucks and SUVs can do to make sure to avoid motorcycle accidents in Virginia on highways and surface streets.

Know the Rules

In the state of Virginia, motorcycles are not required to have turn signals. Drivers can turn using hand signals. So pay close attention to a motorcyclist’s intent when you are sharing the road with them.

Also, motorcycles are permitted to operate two to a lane. That means, if two motorcycles are sharing the lane in front of you or behind you, you have to pay attention to both of their turning intents and make sure you accommodate them.

There is no passenger age restriction for motorcycles in VA, so many motorcyclists may be giving their children a ride to school. As long as the child is in a passenger seat with passenger footrests and is wearing a helmet, this is completely legal. Just like you would with any car carrying a child passenger, take extra caution.

Best Practices

Make sure to give motorcycles plenty of room. It takes less room for them to stop, and they may maneuver in and out of traffic to avoid bumps in the road that are easy for you to simply drive over. Also, because motorcycles are smaller, they are easier to miss, so make sure you check your blind spot to make sure it is OK to change lanes or turn, then check again before you do. Many motorcycle accidents occur because the driver of a car failed to see the motorcycle before turning or changing lanes.

Also take care in passing a motorcycle. If you pass too closely or in a gravelly or rocky lane, you could throw rocks and dirt into the driver’s face, causing a serious hazard on the road.

Whenever you drive, be mindful and courteous and you can avoid accidents.

Supreme Court Strikes Down North Carolina Medicaid Lien Rule

Medicaid provides assistance at the state level to those individuals who lack sufficient liquid assets to pay their medical bills. If a Medicaid recipient’s need for medical care arises from injury caused by a third party, the state may recover a portion of any subsequent judgment the person obtains from that third party in a lawsuit. Federal law, however, prohibits states from placing a lien on a third-party judgment beyond that portion of the award intended to pay a victim’s medical costs.

In March of this year, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of how a state may determine what percent of a tort award is related to medical expenses. The decision involved a 13-year-old girl born with multiple birth injuries. She will require constant nursing care for the rest of her life. The State of North Carolina’s Medicaid program presently pays for part of her care.

The parents filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the physician who delivered the child (who is never named in public records). In 2006, a state court approved a $2.8 million settlement. The settlement itself did not apportion damages for medical care versus other claims, such as pain and suffering. Under North Carolina law, the state’s Medicaid program can seek up to one-third of a damage award as reimbursement for medical expenses paid. Here, the state said it had already paid $1.9 million of the child’s medical bills, for which it would file a lien against the settlement.

Limits On “One Size Fits All” Recovery Rules

The child’s parents asked a federal court to declare the North Carolina law void under federal Medicaid law. While their case was pending, the North Carolina Supreme Court, ruling in a separate case, upheld the state’s one-third recovery rule. The federal court hearing the child’s case agreed with the state supreme court, but the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond agreed with the parents that federal law prevented North Carolina from making a blanket presumption it was entitled to one-third of the settlement award.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Fourth Circuit. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a six-justice majority, said that under federal law–including a prior Supreme Court decision–a state could not “arbitrarily” assign itself a percentage of a tort award. A case-by-case analysis was necessary to determine what part of a given award should be allocated to the reimbursement of medical expenses. In some cases, Justice Kennedy said, this will be relatively easy, as a jury or settlement agreement may specify a percentage. Other cases will require a specific judicial determination. But a state legislature cannot simply step in and decree a percentage for all cases.

Three justices disagreed. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in a dissenting opinion, said the Court should not wade into a “policy question” that is best left to the states and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicaid, to decide. The chief justice noted that North Carolina was simply trying to reconcile conflicting federal mandates–on the one hand, it must try to recoup medical expenses, while on the other, it cannot take a beneficiary’s property beyond said expenses–without any meaningful guidance from federal regulators.

The chief justice may bemoan the lack of “flexibility” states now have in asserting Medicaid liens. But for victims of medical malpractice and other personal injury claims, the Supreme Court’s decision helps protect their damage awards from arbitrary seizure by the state.

About the Author

Steve Williams is a legal blog writer for Hoffman, Larin and Agnetti PA, South Florida’s premier personal injury lawyers.  We offer personal attention and make sure that you understand the precise nature of your case and the legal principles involved.  If you are looking for a personal injury attorney in Key West, look no further than Hoffman, Larin and Agnetti PA.

What are tips to find an accident claim lawyer?

What are tips to find an accident claim lawyer?

When you’ve been injured in an accident that was not your fault, you may be off work, incapacitated and in pain. The last thing you have the energy for is a legal battle, and in any case, where do you start? How can you be sure you actually qualify to claim, and how do you make sure you win the amount of compensation you are entitled to? Fortunately, there are specialists who can help you.

5 Top tips for finding the right accident claim lawyer

Quality: Check out the accident claim lawyer’s web site. They vary enormously. Is it professional, clearly set out and logical? Can you find the information you need?

Authenticity: Are they who they say they are? Go to the About Us page and see who are the people behind the interface. You need to know who you are dealing with.

Expertise: Do they cover the area of compensation law you require? Accident claim law covers a wide range of legal specialisms and you need the to find the accident claim lawyer that is right for your circumstances. Check out their sub-headings for the kinds of cases they represent.

Endorsement: Look for industry endorsements, awards, membership of accredited and professional bodies, that kind of thing. Also, if a reputable person endorses the site, that, too is a good sign.

Track Record: Are there testimonials on the site? What do their clients say about them? Read the real-life cases of claimants, especially related to your type of injury. If the testimonials are good, you can probably trust their professionals too.

Why you should use an accident claim compensation specialist

They understand the claims process and the crucial points of law, so they will look out for your interests

They have the necessary experts for your kind of claim

A compensation claim specialist will ensure your claim qualifies, and assess the chance of success before you commit to the legal process

They will help to ensure you achieve the right level of compensation and do not accept an offer that’s too low.

How to make your claim

When you have found the right accident claim lawyer for your circumstances, consider how you want to deal with them. If you can make your enquiry online, all the better, or if there is a helpline to speak to someone to guide you through the process, it could be a boon if you are laid up and not very mobile. Some sites are so smart with interactive features that you can manage your entire claim enquiry from your screen.

How long does it take?

In the majority of cases, claims are settled by phone. If your claim is straightforward, the whole thing will be managed by communication. If your claim is complex, or if the claim amount is disputed, or you don’t want to agree on the offer made, your lawyer will advise you.

Find out more at Car Accident Claim

Largest Personal Injury Cases in History

If you’re speaking with a personal injury attorney, don’t feel guilty if you’re wondering if you’re looking at the potential to get a very large jury award or settlement. This is natural. After all, if you hadn’t suffered some sort of wrong at the hands of a company or another individual, you wouldn’t be speaking to an attorney at all.

Some lawsuits do end up paying out spectacular amounts of money. The personal injury lawyer you’re working with, however, will likely recommend that you remain realistic about the money you’re likely to receive and no lawyer can guarantee a win. Some lawsuits that do pay out large amounts of money become rather famous, however, and here are some that are notable.

$150 Billion for Family

A jury in Texas awarded $150 billion to the family of a boy who was burned during an assault as a child. The attacker was ordered to pay $370 million in actual damages as a result of the lawsuit, with the more than one hundred billion dollar verdict being symbolic. The child was tied to a tree, burned and later died of skin cancer, only living to be 20 years old. The defendant was the child’s attacker.

Nearly $5 Billion for Burns

One of the largest personal injury awards ever handed out was a $4.9 billion dollar verdict against General Motors. The verdict was handed down in favor of six people who were injured in a 1979 Chevy Malibu. The incident involved a rear-end collision in which the gas tank exploded, causing the victims severe burns. This case, of course, is not representative of what most people can expect when they bring a personal injury lawsuit, but it does show how juries sometimes find that a product is defective in such a way that the people who are injured by it deserve a great deal of compensation for what they’ve suffered.

There have been other lawsuits that have ended up with very large awards being handed down by the jury, but many of them have been overturned later. For example, a lawsuit that initially netted $145 billion from the tobacco industry was reversed by the Florida Supreme Court in 2011. This was part of a class action lawsuit, in which many different parties sue the same entity for largely the same issue.

If you’re talking to a personal injury attorney, remember that your damages are likely to be in line with the actual harm you suffered.

For more information about personal injury law click here.

The 5 Highest DUI Rated States of America

There were almost 12,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the U.S. in 2011. 37 percent of these drunk driver-fault deaths occurred in just five of the nation’s top 10 most populated states. It is clear that these states need to take additional measures to keep drunk drivers off of the road, and some of them have placed a large emphasis on education and enforcement. Sadly, this did not stop almost 4,100 people from dying needlessly in 2011.

The Five Highest Rated DUI States

1. Texas – Although Texas has the second highest population in the country, it is the worst state for DUI-related deaths. In fact, 1,450 people died in 2011 as a result of traffic accidents that involved impaired drivers, and this is a 64 percent increase over California. Sadly, Texas lawmakers do not seem to be interested in helping the police with the enforcement of anti-DUI laws because they have banned the usage of DUI checkpoints. Additionally, interlock ignition devices are not utilized until someone becomes a repeat offender.

2. California – It is no surprise that the state with the largest population would place high on this list, but the fact that only 924 people died from a DUI-related accident in 2011 is indicative of the state’s commitment to reducing drunk driving. California utilizes DUI checkpoints, and first time offenders will lose their license for 120 days. The state is also testing mandatory interlock ignition devices for all offenders in four counties.

3. Florida – The Sunshine State lost 751 people to alcohol-related traffic accidents in 2011. However, this represents a reduction of more than 150 deaths from 2009, and this showcases the state’s effort to get its DUI problem under control. DUI checkpoints have become a way of life for Floridians, and drivers who have a BAC of .15 or above will receive a mandatory interlock ignition device after their license is reinstated.

4. Pennsylvania – More than 500 lives were lost on Pennsylvania’s roads due to drunk drivers in 2011, and this encouraged law enforcement officials to become more vigilant. DUI checkpoints are utilized in high-risk areas, and drivers who are caught with a BAC of .16 or higher will be given stricter penalties. Additionally, any driver who becomes a repeat offender will be forced to use an interlock ignition device. Along with most states, the DUI laws in Pennsylvania could still be tightened a little.

5. North Carolina – There are five states with a larger population than North Carolina that have a lower DUI-related fatality count, and this indicates that lawmakers need to consider increasing the legal ramifications of a DUI. In 2011, 453 people died at the hands of a drunk driver, but there is no mandatory license suspension for first time offenders who have a BAC below .15. By tightening up the law and enforcing more DUI checkpoints, it is possible for North Carolina to fall off of this undesirable top five list.

It is important to be aware that alcohol-related traffic fatalities occur in every state. In other words, even if you reside in an area that has less of an issue with DUIs, it is still imperative to remain alert at all times. Additionally, you should strongly consider the legal consequences before you make the decision to get behind the wheel after having too much to drink.

Author Anthony Joseph enjoys writing about all different areas of the legal system, including the fight against drunk driving fatalities . DUI attorney Steven E. Kellis has been practicing law for at least 20 years, and is very experienced with the DUI laws in Pennsylvania. He’s a former prosecuting DUI attorney in the state of Pennsylvania, and uses his knowledge to strenuously represent any client charged with DUI regardless of the circumstances.

Damages that Entail Monetary Recovery in a Personal Injury Case

In order to recover monetary damages in a personal injury case, the person responsible for the injury must have been negligent.  Whether you were driving, riding a bicycle, or walking when the accident occurred, in addition to dealing with the physical injuries, you also may have to worry about the financial impact of lost wages and substantial medical bills.  To help you resolve the legal issues involved in a personal injury case, it is important to contact an attorney who is experienced handling personal injury cases.

 

To show negligence in the aftermath of an accident, the victim must prove that the accused was negligent and that the accused caused the victim’s injury.  In addition, the victim must not have been negligent.  In a car collision, for example, local traffic laws will typically dictate if certain actions by a driver amounted to negligence.  Far too many car accidents result from a driver operating the vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  It is illegal in Washington state, and in every other jurisdiction, to drive while under the influence, and doing so would be negligent.  Similarly, most states have statutes prohibiting driving while texting.  If it is shown that a driver was texting at the time of the collision, then that driver was negligent.  Other traffic violations that are evidence of negligence include exceeding the speed limit or failing to stop at a red light or stop sign.  In the case of a traffic accident, the information contained in the police report may be critical in determining who was at fault for the accident and whether negligence was involved.   Statements from those involved in the accident, as well as other witnesses will help the police and accident reconstruction personnel determine the cause of the collision.

 

If an injury or death was caused by negligence, the victim or the victim’s family may be able to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, or both.   Compensatory damages are awarded to a victim to compensate  for financial losses suffered as a result of the accident and injury.  Lost wages, medical expenses and property damages are losses that a compensatory award may cover.  Compensatory damages also are awarded for non-financial damages such as pain and suffering .

 

In a personal injury civil lawsuit, the jury may also award the victim punitive damages.  They are  designed to punish the person who caused the accident because of his or her outrageous conduct that caused the accident.  Punitive damages are awarded in addition to the amount of compensatory damages that awarded.

 

 

 

In the immediate aftermath of an accident where you sustained a serious injury or a family member died, you will be faced with many issues related to your medical care, medical expenses, lost wages and the devastation of the loss of a family member.  It is, however, important to contact a lawyer who is experienced in handling personal injury cases in order to ensure that you receive compensation for these losses.

 

This guest post was contributed by the Mariano Morales Law, a Yakima, Washington firm with experience with personal injury cases.