Economic Downturn Responsible for Fewer Child Injuries on Roads

From PR Urgent 18/08/09:

[A] leading firm of personal injury compensation claims solicitors, say that recent research shows the number of children and young people injured in road traffic accidents in the morning rush hour has reduced considerably. Between January and June 2008 there were 344 road accidents involving children, but for the same period in 2009 this number dropped to 228. Some commentators suggest the recession may be linked to the reduction in this type of accident, occurring at the time of the morning "school run".

"Fuel prices and the other overhead costs involved in running a car have become a great burden on many families during the current economic downturn. Many parents are now walking their children to school rather than travelling in the family car. Fewer car journeys have resulted in a reduction in accidents, and which is a good thing."
 
The statistics from the Department of Transport also reveal that the number of children who are either killed or suffer serious personal injury in this type of accident has decreased by 9% in 2009 when comparing the figures for the same period in 2008.

"Traffic is at its busiest first thing in the morning and this may well be the most dangerous time for anyone to be driving, particularly for those taking children to school, as they are often distracted by the demands of the children or are having to rush because they are running late."

Every road user laments the infamous ‘school run’ twice a day which brings otherwise manageable roads to total gridlock. While I hadn’t initially considered the connection between the economic downturn and the number of injuries suffered on the nation’s roads, on reflection, I suppose it is logical. It also presumably means that when the economic slump is over, the numbers may well rise again.

On a related note, I also remember reading a couple of years ago now that personal injuries on Britain’s roads increased sharply when British Summer Time ends and the clocks are put back. Whether it is the fact drivers used to driving home in the light suddenly had to cope with darkness or whether drivers generally have more accidents in the dark per se, I don’t know. I do, however, remember reading that such was the increase in injuries around this time, it was cited as a possible justification for abandoning the rather strange practice of setting clocks back and forwards twice a year across the world.

You Shop, We Drop..... Our Driver Sues You

From CPD Webinars 26.08.08:

A Tesco customer is being pursued for compensation by one of the supermarket chain's home deliverymen months after he slipped on a driveway during a routine drop-off.

Paul Singleton used the supermarket's online shopping service for over three years, spending around £250 every few weeks.  But while his groceries were being delivered four months ago, the driver Andrew Britton, 44, mentioned he had slipped on the sloping driveway. Mr Britton then continued unloading items from the van.
Several weeks later a solicitor's letter unexpectedly arrived at Mr Singleton's home informing him he was being sued for compensation because the driver had injured his ankle in a fall on his property.  Mr Singleton said: "I was stunned and felt totally bemused.  My driveway only slopes down by about an inch.
He contacted Tesco and said: "I told them that one of their employees was suing a customer and they just said they couldn't help.

The fact that this type of situation arises should not come as a surprise to anyone now.  After all, these frivolous why-the-hell-not....let's-sue episodes are all the rage now and no longer just the concern of the USA.  Everyone wants legal redress for the slightest slip, slide or wiggle and the ambulance-chasing antics of so many law 'firms' who run those infamous and corny adverts appealing to gullible members of the public who believe themselves to have suffered slight misfortune are a plague to society.  Seriously, if this is the legal profession, I'm not sure I want 'in' after all. 

As cases go, this is pretty much in the same league as the guy who 'slipped' on a grape in an M&S car park earlier this year and tried to claim damages.  And let's face it, it's probably about as worthy.  I mean, if he'd dropped a bread roll on this toe, it'd be easier to sympathise.  Thinking about it, though, a bramble scratched my arm on the way back from work earlier...... I wonder which firm the Tesco-guy used?  Might be worth a call. 

NHS Compensation Costs Reach All Time High

From the Guardian 19/08/09:

The NHS spent more than £800m settling legal claims last year as complaints of medical negligence against the service rose sharply.

The surge in payouts is revealed in the NHS Litigation Authority's annual accounts which show that maternity services attract the highest legal costs. Clinical errors in delivering babies can result in lifelong damage and payments accordingly reflect the intensive medical care often needed for decades to come.

The liabilities show no sign of easing off. After five years of relatively consistent levels of claims for compensation due to errors by NHS staff, numbers leap last year by 11%. "We have not been able to identify any single factor that might have precipitated the rise," the authority commented in its report.

Most cases are settled out of court. Of the 8,885 clinical and non-clinical claims made in 2008/09, fewer than 4% are expected to end in a court hearing. There were almost 6,000 claims received last year under the clinical negligence scheme for NHS trusts.

Where wholly meritorious cases are brought in response to genuine instances of medical negligence, the argument can at least be made that doing so may indirectly improve the efficiency and quality of health care offered to all. But given the tendency for the majority (read 96%) of cases to be settled out of court - because it tends to be a safer bet for the respondent compared with risking losing the case if it proceeds to trial - there are bound to be a good number of borderline or possibly even undeserving claimants receiving compensation because, from a PR perspective, the NHS simply want to make such allegations go away.

Back seat driver (10) saves the day

From the Metro 18/08/11:

Ten-year-old Josh Hooley managed to steer his mother’s car to safety after she suffered a panic attack on a busy motorway.

He steered the car past speeding traffic on to the hard shoulder after mum Karen, 40, lost control when she missed her turn-off on Birmingham’s notorious Spaghetti Junction.

‘I didn’t know where we were and I just started sweating and breathing rapidly,’ said Mrs Hooley, from St John’s, Worcester.

We’ve all been there Karen.

‘There were articulated trucks and cars whizzing by but Josh remained calm and put his arm on mine and helped me steer the car on to the hard shoulder.’

As a reward, Josh was taken on a tour of the Highways Agency’s control room.

As a what? As a REWARD?

Poor little sod – he’s just saved God knows how many drivers from a hideous calamity and he gets a tour of the Highway Agency’s HQ as a treat. Call me ungrateful but it’s not usually the type of outing which lights many 10 year olds’ fires is it?

Three cheers for Josh then. But the cynic in me says hero Josh has deprived a firm of solicitors from a couple of juicy road traffic accident claims. But hey-ho: who cares what they think.

Barking up the wrong tree

 

From the Solicitors Journal 02/08/11:

Families ‘unlikely to appeal’ after National Trust ruling.

Edward Powell, head of personal injury at Essex firm Ellisons, has said it is “unlikely there will be an appeal” after the High Court ruled that the National Trust was not negligent after a boy died from a falling branch on one of its estates.

Daniel Mullinger was on a primary school trip when the class sheltered under an old beech tree in heavy rain at Felbrigg Hall, Norfolk. A heavy branch collapsed onto the group, killing Daniel and seriously injuring three other children.

The accident occurred in the Great Wood, home to almost 250,000 mature trees and a Site of Special Scientific Interest because of them.

Delivering judgment in Bowen and others v The National Trust [2011] EWHC 1992 (QB), Mr Justice Mackay said the group was sheltering briefly under a large beech tree, probably between 160 and 180 years old, when “entirely without warning” a large branch fractured and fell on them.

Mackay J said the Trust owed the children a duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and under the general law of tort.

He said there was no obligation to ensure the safety of visitors, merely to “take reasonable care to provide reasonable safety”.

Mackay J went on: “It is easy to state the law in this area, but less easy to apply it, particularly in a case with such a tragic outcome as this.

“The thrust of the case against the defendant is that its tree inspectors, for whom it is vicariously liable, failed to exercise reasonable care in their task.”

As truly tragic as this case is, common sense has prevailed.  Sheer bad luck rather than any wrongdoing seems to have been the driving force behind this terrible outcome.

On a related note, I’ve got a rather large tree outside my house which I’m sure will soon be shedding God know how many tens of thousands of leaves all around. Maybe I should treat myself to a leaf blower before they turn into a soggy, slippery mulch and one of my charming neighbours decides to sue me … (they seem the litigious sort).

Blogger’s brush with death

By way of introduction, I first discovered the social media sensation Caitlin Oppermann during the IT module on my LLM (ah - it’s always nice to hark back to those happy days!!) when she was interviewed for an article which appeared in NY Magazine about her rather avant-garde use of social media as a college student.  

She’s an interesting, quirky character (though I’m not sure how much I like her ‘new for 2011’ half shaved head, but hey-ho, each to their own).  She has a huge following and a refreshing ‘edge of your seat’ approach to social media and blogging. 

In short, I like her style (hair dos excluded) and I’ve always felt there need to be more bloggers like that. I think there’s a bunch of legal bloggers out there who can learn a lot from Caitlin.

Anyhow, I digress…

From Caitlin Oppermann’s tumblr blog 27/07/11:

A week ago tonight I was hit by a car while riding my bike.

When the car hit me, I went over the hood and hit the windshield and my bike was thrown away from the car. I didn’t hit my head hard (luckily I was wearing a helmet anyway) but my legs took the bulk of the impact.

When I rolled off of the car and into the street, the woman driving got out, quickly and absent-mindedly asked me if I was ok, and then ran across the street to frantically chase down witnesses to insure that she wouldn’t be liable.

Don’t ya just love what we’ve degenerated into?

My bike was mangled, I was bleeding and swelling and I had no way to get home. I was too out of it to call an ambulance or even the police and somehow I let the lady (and her family, who were all in the car) drive me home with my mangled bike hanging out of the back of the trunk.

I got home, realized that my ankle was swelling and starting to throb as well, and went to the emergency room. I waited for 4 hours, didn’t see anyone, and went home.

The abridged version is that she’s OK, eventually got her wounds seen to and luckily suffered no broken bones.  Sadly, though, she’s been left as a semi nervous wreck with a fear of cycling.

Whoah!  As Crocodile Dundee might have said: now THAT’S a bruise.

(Btw, I wasn’t sure it seemed quite proper posting a picture of Caitlin’s inner thigh.  But hey, we’ve all got them and she was obviously comfortable posting the pictures on her blog in the first place).

I do hope this nasty incident doesn’t put Caitlin off cycling for life; coming from someone who was ran over by a post van as a child, I think it’s important to get back into the saddle as soon as possible. Literally.

Dentist dropped not one but two dental tools down patient’s throat

From Fox News 18/07/09:

A central Florida dentist is being sued for allegedly dropping tools down the throat of an elderly patient — twice.

Relatives of 90-year-old Charles Gaal Jr. recently filed the suit in Orange County Circuit Court against Dr. Wesley Meyers for neglience. An answering message at his Winter Park office Saturday said he was on vacation.

The lawsuit says the doctor dropped an "implant screwdriver tool" in 2006 and a "mini-wrench" in 2007.

The suit also says Gaal underwent multiple medical procedures to remove the tools but never fully recovered. He suffered a cardiac event in June 2007 and died a few days later.

Meyers was fined $17,000 by the state a year later. Meyers was found negligent in a settlement.

As Oscar Wilde might have put it, for a dentist to lose one implement down his patient’s throat may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.

What I don’t understand is how. I actually did my work experience at various dental practices including an orthodontist and with a maxillofacial surgeon. But even from my observations with regular dentists, when much work was being done, particularly where small implements were going to be used (such as in a root canal treatment) the dentist always fitted a dental dam which isolated the tooth or teeth to be worked on and which prevented anything dropping down the patient’s throat.

I remember being told that dental dams were very ‘big’ in America and it was common practice to use one for anything more complicated than the simplest of fillings. I’m amazed, therefore, that Meyers didn’t make use of a dental dam here which would have prevented this tragic event from ever occurring.

The full story is truly disturbing: the 90 year old patient, Mr Gaal, spent over 50 days in hospital before his death from complications stemming from the second implement dropped down his throat.

PI Pensioner in Alsatian Ankle Attack

From the Surrey Comet 20/07/10:

A pensioner hospitalised after being bitten by a police dog during a manhunt used to sell personal injury claims for a living.

It may just be matter of semantics, but how do you sell ‘PI claims’ exactly? Oh well.

Brian Kiddell, 71, who lives in Bramham Gardens off Clayton Road, was watering his patch at the allotments behind Kingston Rugby Club yesterday lunchtime when he was attacked by the Alsatian.

Police helicopters, officers and dogs were searching for two suspects who had crashed their silver BMW in Kelvin Grove and fled onto the allotments.

He said: "I was just resting my hose on a fork.

Now there’s a euphemism if I ever heard one. But I digress.

"I had seen the police officers previously and then there was this loud hailer saying 'there's a police dog on site. Will all police officers stand still'.

He revealed his background was in selling personal injury compensation for a solicitors.

Not, ‘for a solicitors’ eh? Fancy.

Asked whether he would seek compensation, he said: "I think the police will contact me anyway.

"All I'm glad about is it happened this week because I had the Claygate Flower Show on Saturday and I wouldn't have been able to do half the stuff I did."

Mr Kiddell, wthe treasurer of the allotment society, carried off the Queen Elizabeth Ceremonial Cup and the Wilkinson Cup for three vases of sweet peas.

Okay, point taken. Brian Kiddell is a good guy and really didn’t deserve having an Alsatian try and amputate his foot. Note to editor: maybe try easing off on the ‘hard sell’ here.   Also, a proof reader might be a good investment.

Texting girl falls down sewer – family threatens to sue

 From MSNBC 14/07/09:

We all know that walking and texting is a tough combination -- but a Staten Island teen learned the hard way when she fell into an uncovered sewer manhole while trying to send a message.

Now, the family of Alexa Longueira, 15, intends to sue.

The girl suffered a fright and some scrapes on her arms back after she dropped into the hole on Victory Boulevard.

"It was four or five feet, it was very painful. I kind of crawled out and the DEP guys came running and helped me," Longueria told the Staten Island Advance.. "They were just, like, 'I'm sorry! I'm sorry!"

For its part, the Department of Environmental Protection said its workers had turned away briefly to grab some cones when the incident occurred.

"We regret that this happened and wish the young woman a speedy recovery," DEP spokeswoman Mercedes Padilla said in a statement. She added that crews were flushing a high-pressure sewer line at the time.

Personally, I hate people who wander aimlessly along in public with their eyes fixated on their mobile and can’t help feeling there was an element of rough justice here.

Sure, the fall could have been nasty but you can certainly argue that by Longueria not looking where she was going, contributory negligence is brought into play. So while it appears the girl’s family will at least attempt to bring a personal injury claim against the Dept of Environmental Protection, you just have to wonder just what kind of nasty stuff she fell into.

And what happened to her phone.

Personal Injury claims on the rise

From the Law Society Gazette 17/06/10:

The number of personal injury claims filed in the High Court jumped 32% between 2006 and 2008, research has found.

Whoah! That’s quite a jump.

Claims relating to personal injury jumped 31.8% from 914 in 2006 to 1,205 in 2008, according to a study of the latest available figures by legal information provider Sweet & Maxwell.

The rise comes despite attempts to reduce personal injury claims under the Compensation Act 2006, which imposed registration requirements on claims management companies and created the Ministry of Justice’s claims management regulator.

Citing anecdotal evidence from law firms and insurers, Sweet & Maxwell suggested that the recession is behind the rise in personal injury claims, with individuals claiming because they were under financial stress. At the same time, insurers suffering from weak investment returns were more willing to contest claims, Sweet & Maxwell suggested.

Cynics have always claimed that lawyers milk both recessions and the boom periods in equal measure.  While that largely depends on what area you specialise in, I think it’s fair to say there’s an element of truth in it.  Mind you, try telling that to the lawyers who have found themselves out of work over the last couple of years and I’m sure they’ll have something to say about it.

But a 32% jump in PI claims in just 2 years is huge, no matter how you slice it.  While the reasons are interesting, you could conceivably make the argument that a recession allows justice to better prevail, with claimants more likely to bring claims and defendants more inclined to defend them, rather than just settling at will.  That, though, rather presupposes that justice does indeed prevail in an adversarial system.  But that’s a can of worms I’m steering well clear of here.

However, there is another possibility for this starling statistic: maybe there are just more instances of negligence going on out there? 

Cow Attack Victim Awarded Damages

From CPD Webinars 06/07/09:

A police inspector left unable to work for five months after being trampled by a herd of cattle has been awarded more than £10,000 from the landowner.

Inspector Chris Poole suffered a punctured lung, four broken ribs and a severed artery when he was crushed by a herd of some 30 cows, while walking his dog on the Sussex Downs.
The landowner agreed an out-of-court settlement, claiming that not enough was done to protect public footpath users from the animals.

Under common law, farmers have a legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of people lawfully on their land. They can also be liable for failing to take extra safety measures – such as the erection of warning signs or fences – if their animals are behaving aggressively or in an unusual manner.

While generally docile creatures, cows can behave in a threatening way if their maternal instincts are aroused by unusual disturbances such as dogs.

As a child I remember having a run-in with a herd of angry cows which at the time did seem very scary. Anyone who thinks that bulls are the only domestic ruminant which can turn nasty is simply wrong. Living in a rural area, though, meant that I couldn’t exactly avoid our Friesian friends forever and I inevitably learnt that ‘standing one’s ground’ is by far the best means of handling it.

A spokesman for the National Farmers Union gave some sound advice:

"Our advice to walkers is if you have a dog with you, keep it on a lead, but do not hang on to it should a cow or bull start acting aggressively.
"If you feel threatened, just carry on as normal, do not run, move to the edge of the field and if possible find another way round."

Blind panic should only ever be a last resort! 

Path’s become ‘too dangerous for wheelchair’

^{Photo courtesy of James McCauley}

Not my headline; it’s the witty, attention-grabbing header chosen by the South Gloucestershire Observer dated 07/07/11.  Oh yes!

A woman was injured after falling from a footpath the city council has failed to make safe, despite pledges it would do so.

She was rescued from a stream after slipping from the path between Water Lane [appropriately named?!], Tesco supermarket and Calington Road, Brislington.

It is not clear how she ended up in the water but four Avon fire and rescue appliances and Great Western Ambulance Service were needed to get her out of the water and onto a spinal board.

“It’s not clear how the woman ended up in the water?” How about – she slipped?

More to the point, why on earth did it take 4 fire engines and crews to get her out of a stream? Talk about adding insult to injury. Was it not enough that the poor woman suffered the ignominy of going a over t into a stream without the local rag implying she’s the size of a fully grown rhino!

A fire service spokeswoman said the woman had fallen 2m into the water.

Good to see the roving reporter actually did some kind of research then.  Strange that the fact the woman ended up in the water remained a mystery to them then!

Phil Collins, [traa la la] who lives with his disabled, 82-year old mum Margaret on nearby Homemead Drive, said the path was far too treacherous to take her along in her wheelchair.

… The woman who fell in the stream was taken to hospital with back injuries but it is not believed that she was seriously hurt.

Huh!  And what about her pride after this brarmer went to press?

If you've suffered a slip, trip or fall, you may wish to consult a firm of no win no fee solicitors.

Illegal Bakery Worker Needlessly Loses Arm

From BBC News 11th June 2009:

A Spanish bakery accused of barbaric behaviour towards an illegal worker will face "the full weight of the law", the government has vowed.

The statement comes amid shock over the case of a Bolivian worker whose arm was cut off in an accident at work.

Bosses at the bakery in Valencia are accused of dumping him 100m (330 feet) from the hospital entrance and throwing the severed limb in a rubbish bin.

A Spanish trade union has lodged a complaint against the bakery.

The union - the Workers Commissions (CCOO) - claims that in the early hours of 28 May, the arm of Franns Rilles was severed in a kneading machine while he was working.

It was allegedly dumped in a rubbish bin and only discovered by police the following day, by which time it was too late to reattach it.

This one is a little tough to get your head around and the mystery is not helped by the fact that news reports do not make it clear whether the arm was (allegedly) discarded maliciously or by accident. Either way, it’s certainly odd to say the least; either someone at the factory bore quite a grudge or they’ve a hideously distorted sense of the meaning of rubbish.

In any event, the personal injury suffered by Mr Rilles is by no means the only pressing legal issue at play here:

Mr Rilles, 33, had worked 12-hour days at the bakery, earning 23 euros a day (£20; $32) under no contract, for about a year and a half, the union says.

Police are investigating allegations of mistreatment.

Wimbledon concern over slips & trips – just a load of balls?

From the Telegraph 21/06/11:

Thousands of tennis fans were denied the chance to watch Andy Murray's opening match at Wimbledon last night as the outdoor screen was turned off for the first time in the tournament's history because of the weather.

Wimbledon spokesman Johnny Perkins said: "The hill has been closed because of the slippery nature of the grass while it is so wet.

"It is a health and safety issue. We just can’t have people slipping and sliding and falling off the thing and breaking their ankles.

We potentially could have large numbers of people slipping and sliding all over the place."

Still, that doesn’t seem to concern local authorities when they don’t bother gritting the pavements in winter.

The announcement, made on a tannoy system as Murray warmed up, was met with groans and boos by the crowds who had gathered on the hill, a favoured viewing spot for those who do not manage to get tickets for the main courts at SW19.

Um – excuse me: you can’t make groaning or grunting noises at Wimbledon!!! It’s just not cricket tennis, ahem, allowed - apparently. Personally, I think there’s nothing better than a good old grunt, shriek and moan whilst on court. And if you’re hitting a tennis ball at the time, so much the better.

Anyway, can’t Henman Hill / Murray Mount be astroturfed?  Or what about insisting fans move around on wet grass on all fours or imitating a seal moving up a beach?  Or why not have Wimbledon organisers dish out studded boots?

No?  

[As for … British hopeful Katie O'Brien] … [h]er day was would only get worse after writing on her Twitter page: "I've just been sat in the rain on Henman Hill with friends and family drowning my sorrows with a Pimms!!!"

Great – so instead of getting wet feet on the grass, inconsolable tennis fans turn to the bottle and give their livers a pounding.  Still, isn’t that what Wimbledon is all about for us Brits – downfalls and alcohol?

Deepwater Horizon fallout: Worker Injury Claims

From Business Insurance 14/06/10:

BP and its contractors face an array of worker injury claims as well as questions over workforce safety practices as they marshal a massive cleanup operation in the Gulf of Mexico.

The sheer volume of workers used in the onshore and offshore cleanup operations and the toxic substances involved make workers compensation claims inevitable, experts say.

A BP spokesman said the company has 22,000 “hirees” and volunteers working on oil cleanup efforts, but he could not say how many are BP employees and how many are workers for contractors, who could be responsible for worker injury claims.

“There is no doubt about it, and then when you toss into the mix the toxicity of the materials they are working with then you have additional claims beyond the normal slipping on the deck of a boat or on the dock. Absolutely, there are going to be claims and that belies the bigger picture of any type of toxic exposure.”

I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. The worst oil spill in US history, an unparalleled clean-up operation, and now a bevy of compensation claims popping up.  This arguably has the potential to sink BP for good.  (If they weren’t already, of course).

But it’s important to remember that two wrongs won’t make a right and low standards of safety for workers trying to limit the scale of the catastrophe will only ever make things worse. 

Woman goes hyper at Dunkin’ Donuts

Hyperglycaemic that is.  Allegedly.

From Money.msn.com 03/06/11:

A Philadelphia woman is suing Dunkin' Donuts, saying a worker mistakenly put sugar in her coffee, which ultimately caused her to go into diabetic shock.

There’s nothing like bringing a negligence claim against a friendly barista doing a good deed in the city of brotherly love, is there? 

Danielle Jordan's lawsuit claims she asked for artificial sweetener to be added to her coffee during a June 2009 visit. Jordan claims she downed the drink and experienced dizziness, light-headedness and ended up making an emergency trip to the hospital.

A legal liaison for the Canton, Mass.-based doughnut chain told the Philadelphia Daily News she couldn't comment on the case. But she says employees only provide customers with the order they ask for.

Jordan's lawyer, Kenneth Rodgers, says his client couldn't tell from the taste of the coffee that she got sugar instead of her preferred artificial sweetener. He says she didn't finish the drink before she fell ill.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

Perhaps this is just me, but if you knew you were a diabetic, wouldn’t you always insist on putting your own sugar in?  In my experience, your average barista wouldn’t know whether they were breaking open a sachet of sugar, saccharin, or a wet wipe and dumping it in your cawfee.

So who knows what happened: did the barista get the sachets muddled? Had the claimant scoffed a sneaky donut around the corner before going in and it really was saccharin in there?  Heck, maybe a sugar cube became dislodged from a ceiling tile overhead and plopped in the coffee unbeknownst to anyone?

In any case - who cares – it’ll settle within the week! 

Sweet as you like. 

F1 car hits spectator in mad cross track dash

Ouch–that looks painful

From espnf1.com 04/06/11:

Sebastien Buemi ran over a spectator during a Red Bull demonstration event in Japan which was being held to raise money for tsunami victims.

Ouch – talk about kicking a country while it’s down!

Buemi was carrying out his usual routine when a spectator decided to take a short-cut across the track from behind a bridge. Unfortunately, he ran straight in front of the Red Bull, but a last-second jump as the car hit him probably saved him from serious injury.

Or slicing him clean off at the ankles.

Fortunately, neither Buemi or the spectator were injured.

Phew!! Does that mean there won’t be another car compensation claim clogging up the courts?

Incidentally, the various reports I’ve read all say it was a Red Bull that Buemi was driving; going back to his Scuderia Toro Rosso next weekend in Canada will no doubt seem like a load of bull.
See what I did there? 

Sigh.

Personal Injury… in the Wild

From Total Injury Blog (found via Digg):

Personal injuries don’t just happen on icy patches of sidewalk. Every year, thousands of people across the world are seriously injured and even killed by the wild creatures of the animal kingdom. Animal attacks may be more common than you think.

Check out these stats on personal injury in the wild and see which animal attacks are the most dangerous. Also, learn about domestic dog attacks, dangerous aquatic animals and what to do when you encounter a grizzly bear.

(Click for larger image)

I’d never really thought of wild animals being part of the PI compensation culture problem before – and for good reason: they’re not.  I don’t think anyone – save for Michael* over at Total Injury – is suggesting the answer to man meeting a dangerous wild animal and coming off worst is to be found by suing said animal.  Good luck with that one, Michael!  ;-) 

Still, the US have probably witnessed a fair few actions brought against dangerous critters.  It’s a jurisdiction prone to frivolity after all!

There’s no doubt it’s an interesting infographic – if only for the cans of grizzly bear repellent.  I’m currently trying to patent a similar substance for use against ex girlfriends for what it’s worth.  We’re moving to the clinical trial stage soon, so if there are any willing volunteers out there, you know, feel free to get in touch.

*And yes, the similarity in names is an unfortunate coincidence and, for the record, it’s definitely not me.

QualitySolicitors Hits the Streets

From the Law Society Gazette 20/05/10:

Law firm marketing alliance QualitySolicitors has launched a national high street branch network in a bid to become the first ‘household name’ legal brand, the Gazette can exclusively reveal.

Today sees the opening of the first 15 QualitySolicitors branches across the UK, in a strategy described as a ‘game changer’ by one industry commentator.

Well-established practices such as Bristol firm Burroughs Day, Lockings in Hull and Howlett Clarke in Brighton are among 13 firms to have totally rebranded. They now trade under the QualitySolicitors name, branding and logo.

QualitySolicitors chief executive Craig Holt said: ‘The threat posed by “Tesco law” [when the Legal Services Act comes fully into force in October 2011] is so grave because of the lack of recognised, customer service-focused brand names in the legal market.

‘Visibility on the high street, along with a high-profile marketing campaign including on primetime television, will transform QualitySolicitors into the first household name legal brand.’

It’s always said that attack is often the best form of defence and I guess this is a clear shot across the bows of ‘Tesco law’ players, who are currently readying their battalions prior to battle.

I think few will deny that the legal profession should evolve and modernise its image and accessibility to better reflect the demands of clients in the 21^st century. It’ll be interesting to see how well this is received but this could well be a taste of things to come.

And regarding the name, QualitySolicitors, it’s certainly a ‘what it says on the tin’ approach, but I suppose those are often the best.

Drunk Pedestrian’s Negligence Claim against Driver Fails

From The Solicitors’ Journal 20/04/09:

A drunk man who ran into the road, collided with a car and suffered catastrophic head injuries, cannot sue the driver for negligence, the High Court has held.

Michael Stewart, who is in a persistent vegetative state as a result of his injuries, had drunk an estimated five to seven pints and was sitting at a bus stop in the early hours of the morning, talking to a friend.

Delivering judgment in Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704(QB), Mr Justice Coulson said Stewart suddenly got up in the middle of his conversation and, without any warning, began walking towards the road.

“Mr Glaze was driving at about the speed limit. On his own evidence, he was driving carefully, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise. In particular, there was nothing to say that he had been distracted by anything at all.

“He had no reason to take any particular note of Mr Stewart until he stepped off the kerb. From then on, everything happened in a split second. It would, in my judgment, be wholly unreasonable on the evidence available to me to conclude that, immediately prior to the conclusion, Mr Glaze suddenly stopped being careful.”

“The case hinged on the proposition that Mr Glaze should have been looking out for Mr Stewart’s inexplicable charge into the road.

“In all the circumstances, I regard that as untenable. I do not consider that a reasonable driver would necessarily have seen Mr Stewart at that precise split second.”

Rejecting the negligence claim, Coulson J said that, given Mr Stewart’s inexplicable conduct, the collision was all but inevitable.

The duty of care that road-users owe is a two-way street. Pedestrians not only owe a duty to other road-users but arguably, in a broader sense, to themselves as well. High alcohol consumption and public roads are a dangerous combination, period, whether you’re behind the wheel or otherwise. And the law has long recognised that; let’s not forget here, Stewart was almost certainly guilty of an offence under the Licensing Act of 1872.

Although the consequences in this case were horrific, they could, of course, have been much worse. What if Glaze had been a motorcyclist and sustained serious injuries himself as a result of Stewart wandering into the road? As terrible as Stewart’s injuries were, I can only agree with the decision – particularly seeing that as far as Road Traffic Accidents are concerned, liability usually favours the pedestrian. On the facts, there was absolutely no reason to find that Glaze had been negligent, but there are broader policy issues in play here too; to have found in favour of Stewart would have been to create a dangerous precedent which would hardly be a fitting response to the growing culture of irresponsible public drinking that plagues modern society.