0800 0 224 224
Find your local office
01 March 2006
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the right public liability insurer to pay in cases of asbestos related injury were the insurers in force at the time the disease first gave rise to symptoms in the claimant rather than the policy in force at the time of the symptomless exposure to asbestos.
An 11-year-old boy climbed the outside of a fire escape attached to a building within the grounds of a hospital. He was imitating older children he had seen use diagonal cross braces to scale the fire escape. He fell about 30 feet, sustaining significant brain damage.
This case dealt with the duty owed under the Occupiers’ Liability 1957, section 2 to a hotel visitor who had fallen from a second floor bedroom window after leaning out.
The claimant suffered a soft tissue strain of the left forearm as a result of having to repetitively “break” cardboard boxes in his work for the defendant. This task was normally carried out by an Easybreak machine. The claimant, however, carried it out manually for approximately an hour and a half on the morning of 12 August 2003, breaking in the region of 6,000 to 9,000 boxes.
The claimant was descending a spiral stair case on the inside and she was walking with a colleague at her side. As she approached the narrowing section of the stairs she lost her footing and went to grab the hand rail but there was not one available. She fell down the remaining stairs.
Here are some propositions from recent high level RTA cases especially as between pedestrianand driver.
The claimant suffered severe head injuries in a road traffic accident. His physical recovery was good but in 1999 he developed epilepsy and was unable to work. In November 2000, having taken legal advice, he agreed to accept liability on a 50/50 basis. Proceedings were commenced and in December 2001 Judgment was entered for 50 per cent liability with damages to be assessed.
It is not often we get specific awards for tinnitus where there is no hearing loss but in a recent case the judge considered quantum in respect of a 12 month whiplash claim and also tinnitus without any hearing loss. He awarded £2,500 for the whiplash, but on the tinnitus he awarded £5,000 saying that the previous reported case of Vaughan -v- Morgan, which would now be worth £3,030, was now “rather ancient” and of little assistance.
The failure to obtain a party’s prior written confirmation that service of a claim form by fax was acceptable is more than a minor departure from a permitted method of service. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the judge who had made an Order under 6.9 dispensing with service of the claim form. The court said: