For more information or advice on an injury you may have received please contact Mary Duncan, Partner in our personal injury department.

Fatal horseriding accident claim

10 September 2010

We represented the claimant who brought a successful fatal accident claim for substantial damages following the death of his wife in a road traffic accident. 

The claimant's wife was riding her horse along a country road with their daughter when a lorry owned by the defendant came along the road in the opposite direction and caused her horse to scare.  She fell to the ground and was hit by the lorry. She died at the scene. The claimant alleged that the lorry was travelling too quickly, ignored his wife’s hand signal to slow down, failed to slow down and caused a loud bang which caused the horse to scare. Further, the lorry should not have been on the road in any event as there was a 7.5 tonne weight restriction. 

Liability for the accident was denied by the defendant. The defendant said that its driver did slow down and did not act negligently. The defendant relied on the police reconstruction report which concluded that the lorry was travelling at approximately 9 mph at the time of the impact.  The speed at which the lorry approached the horses was not clear.  Each party was permitted to obtain its own reconstruction report and we also obtained a report from an equine expert.

Settlement was reached without the defendant admitting liability but the settlement shows that the defendant recognised the strength of the claimant's case.  The Highway Code says drivers should pass horse riders wide and slowly.  There is no requirement always to stop but a request to slow down or stop should be heeded.  A number of questions arise, such as what is a reasonable speed in the particular circumstances.  In this case there was a large, noisy lorry over the weight restriction for the road travelling on a country lane where it filled the entire side of its carriageway.  In these circumstances it is highly arguable that the driver should have taken greater care, and had he done so this tragic accident would have been avoided.

Henmans obtains lump sum of over £3m and annual payments of over £100,000 for injured pedestrian

12 August 2010

In 2004 the claimant, who was 19 at the time, was crossing the road when he was hit by a car. He sustained extensive brain injury that left him in a coma for nearly three weeks after the accident and with amnesia for six months thereafter.

The claimant needed cranial surgery several times over the next two years. Despite many months of physiotherapy and rehabilitation he was left with epilepsy and severe disabilities, both mental and physical, that meant he would need round-the-clock care for the rest of his life. His life expectancy was shortened by 8-10 years.  

Henmans obtained damages from the defendant driver's insurers, who partially admitted liability, that covered past and future medical bills, costs of past and future care, costs of adapting his accommodation, travel costs and a sum for pain and suffering. The full case report can be read here.

12 July

Cycle injury: cyclist not to blame

ALEXANDER KOTULA v (1) EDF ENERGY NETWORKS (EPN) PLC (2) MORRISON UTILITY SERVICES LTD (3) BIRCH UTILITIES LTD (2010)  

The claimant cyclist suffered severe injuries when he fell into poorly constructed road works and then was hit by a passing lorry.  It was argued that he was partly to blame for his injuries because he rode on the pavement, but the judge came to the view that this was reasonable in the circumstances because the road was so busy.  It was the defendant that was entirely negligent and the cyclist was not to blame. 

8 July 2010

Car accident whiplash Injury

PHILLIP DAVIDSON v MUSTAFA MUSTAFA (2010)  

The claimant suffered whiplash injuries following a car accident and won damages of £3,353 on a no-win no-fee basis. He was unable to perform manual work for several weeks after the accident but was expected to make a full recovery within eight months from the date of the accident.  Such injuries are sadly too common and can cause considerable discomfort, making the instruction of experienced lawyers essential in order to ensure claimants receive the best advice.

29 June 2010

Recommendations following E Coli outbreak

In 2009 93 people were infected with a potentially deadly strain of E Coli 0157 after visiting Godstone Farm in Surrey.  Those infected were mostly young children. 17 of those affected developed serious complications and eight needed kidney dialysis. Some individuals have been left with permanent kidney damage and may need a transplant in the future. BBC News has reported that 28 of the people who caught the disease are bringing claims against the farm owners.

The Health Protection Agency has investigated the outbreak. Professor Griffin’s report says that Godstone Farm carried out an inadequate risk assessment in relation to visitors contracting the infection. The farm owners relied on members of the public to control the risk themselves, through hand washing. In order to reduce the risk of farm visitors contracting E Coli, contact with animal faeces must be avoided. Godstone Farm used “deep litter” bedding. Deep litter is only changed on a three monthly basis and, in the interim, clean bedding is put on top of the soiled bedding. The report states that this form of bedding should not be used in visitor areas and that  “ This outbreak could very likely have been avoided if more attention had been given to preventing visitors being exposed to animal faecal matter.”  The report also concludes that the staff at the farm were poorly trained in health and safety matters.

The report identifies that it was not only the farm owners that were at fault. Some GPs did not treat the illness as a medical emergency and wrongly advised parents of the children affected that they could go home and that the children would recover on their own.

The report’s six top recommendations are:-

• Farm operators should ensure that the layout and design of public areas are such that visitor contact with animal faecal matter (particularly ruminant) is minimised or eliminated
• There is a need to raise public awareness of the potential infection risks when arriving at a farm attraction, emphasising the parent/carer’s decision to allow children to have animal contact
• There should be a reassessment of the risk of E coli O157 infection as ‘low’. Its probability may be low but the impact is high and the consequences very severe
• An Approved Code of Practice should be developed for the Open Farm industry, involving relevant authorities and in close consultation with leading representatives of the industry to underpin the industry’s initiative in establishing an accreditation scheme
• The regulatory agencies and others should explore ways of working together in regulating Open Farms clarifying roles, responsibilities and relationships
• Research should be pursued to assist clinicians in the rapid diagnosis of E coli O157 and the identification of and treatment for children likely to develop severe complications of the infection. Research should also be undertaken aimed at preventing or limiting carriage of the organism in animals

A full copy of the report is available at: http://www.griffininvestigation.org.uk/report/full_report.pdf

An estimated 5 million people visit open farms in Britain each year. The report highlights that key changes need to take place in relation to how visits to farms are run and monitored. There also needs to be greater public awareness about the risk of contracting E Coli, and how to prevent against it in order to ensure that a similar outbreak does not occur in future.

10 June 2010

Are swimming pool operators responsible for unsupervised children?    

In R v Upper Bay Ltd (2010) a seven year old child suffered brain damage after he nearly drowned. He had been left unsupervised by his father and he was not wearing arm-bands. The swimming pool operator was found to be responsible for the injuries that the child sustained and also received a criminal conviction under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for failing to ensure that the child was safe during his visit to the pool. The swimming pool operator appealed against its conviction arguing that, in the circumstances, the child’s father should have been responsible for his son’s safety.  

The appeal was dismissed.  It was decided that the swimming pool operator was guilty as it was reasonably foreseeable that a small child may escape from their parent’s supervision. The appropriate safety measures should have been in place.

20 May 2010

Research shows 92% of UK hospitals are failing head injury patients

Figures have been released today that show 92% of all hospitals in the UK are failing to provide patients with satisfactory written information following minor head injuries, which could lead to serious health implications and put lives at risk.

The results show just 21 of 254 A&E departments across the UK provide minor head injury patients with leaflets containing all the key information as recommended by guidelines. The figures were issued by Headway – the brain injury association, having been collected and analysed by researchers at Warwick Medical School at the University of Warwick. The research comes as Headway launches its annual Action for Brain Injury Week from 17-21 May 2010. For further information, visit www.abiweek.org.uk.

17 May 2010

Compensation for children who have injured their fingers in Maclaren buggies  

It is estimated that more than 40 children in the UK have lost fingertips after trapping their fingers in the hinges of Maclaren buggies. Last November there was a mass recall of Maclaren buggies in the US when several children suffered finger laceration. When this was reported in the UK, individuals began contacting the BBC News website about their similar experiences. Once the dangerous fault was identified UK customers were provided with protective hinge covers.  

The company has not admitted liability for the injuries, but it has agreed to compensate those children who have been “genuinely” injured. It is thought that the children will be awarded between £2,500 and £10,000 in compensation. The amount of compensation received will depend on the seriousness of their injuries. 

14 May 2010

But he was driving too fast!  

In Murphy v Smith News Trading Ltd v Anor (2010) an individual was injured when the vehicle he was travelling in collided with a lorry. He brought a claim against the lorry driver, who had been driving in excess of the speed limit, and the car driver, who entered the junction on a red light. Even though the car driver entered the junction on a red light, he argued that the lorry driver should take some responsibility for the accident as he was driving too fast.  

The court found that the accident was entirely the fault of the car driver. The fact that the lorry was speeding was not a cause of the accident.