Personal Injury news & Compensation Claim info

A compensation claim has been made after a man fell 30ft from a bridge on to a disused railway line during an illegal rave party.

Andrew Henley, 26, from Milton in Staffordshire, was left in a coma for three weeks and took a further seven months to recover from the near-fatal accident, which took place in nearby Keele in October 2006. He claims to still suffer mental and physical injuries, including permanent damage to his arms and what his family has described as a change in personality, such as a short temper and a lack of motivation.

The incident took place in the early hours of the morning, while Mr Henley and his girlfriend at the time made their way to a party that they had heard rumours about.

“The path to the rave was marked out with glowsticks, but some of them had been nicked,” he said. “You had to go over the tunnel to get down, but because it was so dark I went straight over the hedge and fell on to the railway line.”

The fall caused Mr Henley to suffer a fractured skull, broken tibia, four fractured ribs and permanent damage to his elbows. According to his father, he even came close to dying from his injuries during the first few days of the three-week coma.

Since the accident, Mr Henley has found it difficult to find employment. At first he returned to his old job, only to be made redundant a few months later. He has now asked his solicitor to start proceedings to claim compensation for the accident. It is unclear who owns the land where the accident happened, which is 100 yards from the nearest road, but it is believed that it could belong to Network Rail.

Mr Henley added: “You can’t get to the place now, there’s fences all around it and it’s all padlocked. If it had been like that before, I wouldn’t have had the accident.”

The current financial crisis has led to a large increase in the number of compensation claims being lodged in the UK.

Road accidents and public liability claims have soared in recent months, as a result of damage to roads caused by the winter’s cold weather. The public themselves have not been helping the situation either, as many people are avoiding servicing their cars in an effort to save money, or in fear that they will be hit with expensive repair and maintenance costs. This has also contributed to the rise in accidents, due to more cars on the road which could be considered as not roadworthy.

There has also been a sharp rise in the number of work accident claims in the country. According to recent research, firms are putting less importance on health and safety regulations, possibly in an attempt to cut costs. However this could work against them if an accident does occur and a compensation claim is made.

A concert-goer has been awarded €15,000 in damages after she suffered whiplash injuries at a Rod Stewart concert in Dublin in 2005.

Sally Price, a lifelong fan of the 64-year-old singer, was struck by a football that Stewart had kicked towards the audience at the Point Depot concert. A tradition that the rocker has been doing at his concerts for over 30 years, Stewart kicked dozens of autographed footballs into the crowd, much to the delight of his fans.

The court heard that on this occasion, Stewart miskicked one of the balls, which hit the rigging above the stage at the venue and then came down on the fan’s head at such a pace that it knocked her over and left her feeling dazed for some time. Judge Jacqueline Linnane at the Circuit Civil Court awarded the sum to her after hearing that she continues to suffer whiplash-like injuries years after the incident took place, right into the present.

The concert promoters, MCD Promotions Ltd of Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin, were slapped with the bill after the judge decided that the claimant had suffered concussion as a result of the incident.

The singer’s management team gave her four autographed footballs as an apology, two of which she gave to the doctor who treated her. Stewart, who is a keen Celtic supporter and who once trained as a professional footballer, also met with Mrs Price.

“I have always been a fan of his music and the singer came down to see me as I was being treated,” she said. “I would have been so pleased to have met him on a happier occasion.”

Hugh O’Keeffe, counsel for Mrs Price, told the court that such a reckless act could have been avoided and that the potential danger of the entertainer’s actions were foreseeable, leaving the concert promoters liable in negligence for the whiplash-like injuries to Mrs Price’s neck and shoulders.

A man who suffered spinal injuries during a five-a-side football match has been granted the right to appeal against the court decision saying he would not be allowed to seek financial compensation.

Andrew Kerr was tackled whilst playing football at a sports centre in Littleborough in February 2005. The tackle caused Mr Kerr to collide into a wall which lead to spinal injuries and him eventually needing a wheel chair.

Mr Kerr will lodge a compensation claim against the man who tackled him, Ged Willis, in a hearing that is expected to last a day and be overviewed by three appeal court judges.

Mr Kerr previously claimed that Mr Willis had pushed him into the wall on purpose, which the high court dismissed. The appeal court hearing in London has granted Mr Kerr permission to challenge this judgement.

MILITARY veterans that were exposed to radiation during the 1950s have won the right to claim compensation against the MoD for medical conditions suffered.

The servicemen claim negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence during the nuclear tests performed in the South Pacific and Australia between 1952 and 1958. The veterans were exposed to excessive radiation during the tests and this month won a high court case which grants them permission to sue the Ministry of Defence for financial compensation, which could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

A group of around 1,000 veterans believe the radiation exposure has been the cause of illnesses suffered later in life, including cancers and chromosome damage.

The counterargument put forward by the MoD stated that too much time had passed since the tests and that claims would undoubtedly fail at any future trial.

When presenting his verdict in London’s high court, Mr Justice Foskett refused to follow the MoD’s point of view. Instead he highlighting a recent scientific study from New Zealand which provided fresh evidence into the likely impacts a veteran’s health would face after being exposed to nuclear testing. Mr Justice Foskett believed this would be “crucial and pivotal” for any compensation claim lodged against the MoD.

The judge asked ministers to consider settling out of court, rather than dragging out legal proceedings further.

Of the ten lead cases, five were permitted to continue and claim compensation, while the other five were allowed to proceed as well on grounds of fairness.

A solicitor representing the veterans said he was “appalled, if not disgusted” with both the government, for allowing the issue of compensation to drag on, and the MoD for fighting the case.

“Prime minister after prime minister over the past 50 years have said that if veterans could prove that they had been exposed to radiation they would be compensated,” he said.

“When we could prove that they had been exposed to radiation the MoD says, ‘Sorry guys, you’re too late.’ That’s disingenuous. It’s not right. It’s appalling.” He accused ministers of wanting to delay the case so long that all the claimants would be dead: “There is no other conclusion that one could reach.”

Since the action pursuing compensation began, 59 of the veterans have died. It is now hoped that the MoD will reach a settlement with the surviving veterans within a few months, rather than go to trial in the courts, a process which would take years in preparation alone.

A WIDE-RANGING survey has concluded that there are significant problems with personal injury laws and the US jury system.

Legal Prudence and the American Jury identified the spread of plaintiff-unfriendly legal practices as one of the major problems facing the civil justice system. It said that major corporations, along with other pro-business proponents of tort reform legislation, have systematically engaged in a deliberate and persistent campaign against plaintiffs, their personal injury lawyers, and consumer protection laws.

NAPIL.com, which carried out the survey, said that in an effort to limit consumer protection, tort reform advocates have argued that American corporations are beset by immoral, unscrupulous trial lawyers who file unmeritorious lawsuits, including those for personal injury and rely on unethical tactics for the purposes of obtaining large, unjustified verdicts.

It has resulted in a severe bias among potential jurors who routinely blame plaintiffs for increased insurance costs, and either rule against plaintiffs or award insufficient damages for personal injury, said NAPIL.com.

The ultimate risk is that such rhetoric could lead to arcane legislation such as the MICRA laws, which burden only plaintiffs who have suffered the most horrific personal injuries, restricting their non-economic damages to no more than $250,000.

THE Louisville Zoo has been named by personal injury lawyers in two actions following the derailment of its miniature train at the start of June.

Some 22 of the 30 passengers on board at the time of the accident suffered personal injuries, with 17 of them children. However, while 15 of that number were treated and later released, the five adult passengers were treated for “serious” injuries.

According to reports, some of the passengers aboard the zoo train claimed the park equipment was swiftly travelling around a railroad curve, behind the zoo’s Gorilla Forest exhibit,when it derailed and flipped onto its side.

The first personal injury lawsuit was launched bythe Bamforth family of Charlestown, Indiana. Kentucky personal injury attorneys also filed for a restraining order to stop the zoo from altering the scene after the Kentucky Department of Agriculture finished its investigation.

Five other families – 12 people in total – have also retained legal counsel and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the zoo citing injuries involving the derailment. Louisville personal injury lawyers allege the speed of the train seemed abnormally fast for a zoo attraction especially one transporting children.

WOMEN are responsible for almost three quarters of personal injury claims that take place in public areas, the Irish Injuries Board has found.

While women account for some 70% of personal injury claims, the total value of public liability awards made in the two years to December 2008 was €65.4 million.

Some 56% of personal injury accidents took place in privately owned establishments, with almost a quarter happening in shops. Just under 20% happened in a pub, nightclub or restaurant and 13% took place in leisure facilities such as sports clubs, gyms and cinemas.

More than a quarter of personal injurie awards (27%) were made against local authorities, while 6% involved transport and utility services, according to Injuries Board, which was set up in 2004 as part of the Government’s reform programme to tackle the high costs associated with personal injury claims.

A businessman who fell victim to a car insurance scam has spoken out about his experience in the hope that other drivers will not be taken in by the personal injury scam aimed to generate whiplash compensation from insurance companies.

Michael Adams, of St Albans, believes he was forced into driving into the back of a car by two conmen who were working together in separate cars.

Whilst driving on a roundabout he saw two cars which he states “appeared to be dithering around”.

When behind one of the vehicles it quickly slammed its brakes on, meaning that Mr Adams could not avoid hitting it as the other car was positioned to take up the only space that could have been used to swerve around the first car.

Mr Adams said: “The man got out of his car and when I asked him why he stopped he said the car in front had braked. The man claimed he did not speak English even though he wrote his name and address for Mr Adams.”

Within a matter of days there were three separate personal injury claims that had been lodged by the first driver and his two passengers. All three claims were seeking whiplash compensation as part of a personal injury claim.

Mr Adams said: “I just want to warn people to be aware if they see cars being driven strangely like these two to keep well back in case they are trying to trap another driver to win big cash payouts.”

The businessman has lost his no claims bonus and will face higher car insurance premiums in the future due to the personal injury claims listed against him. He asked his insurance company to fight the case as he believes the claims are fraudulent but they decided to pay the injured parties.

WITH social networking taking a greater importance role in our lives, sites like Facebook and Twitter are increasingly being used against claimants in personal injury cases to have them thrown out.

Now some personal injury lawyers are advising their clients to stay away from such sites as the legal process goes ahead, and have issued some pointers to avoid cases being ended as the other side confirms or disproves the claimant’s ability to resume a normal life.

Here are a few worth considering:

- Allow your personal injury lawyer unrestricted access to all your social media sites, postings, and content . They will be able to review and advise you on anything potentially damaging to your case;

- Be critical of everything attributed to you online. Run a Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, YouTube, Flickr, and Twitter search for your name and any keywords associated with you. Take off anything you wouldn’t want your grandmother or boss seeing, even if it’s restricted and private, as personal injury investigators are expert at taking innocent-looking information and turning it to their advantage;

- Check your privacy settings. Most sites will allow you to actually block certain people altogether, so block the opposing personal injury lawyer and law clerk. They may employ someone who you don’t know instead, so don’t allow any access to anyone other than immediate friends;

- Don’t accept friend requests or answer emails from people you don’t know as, on Facebook and other sites, sending a response will grant the sender access to your profile for a certain number of days. This will give enough time for the answering party to assess your personal injury claim;

- Don’t post anything about your personal injury case at any stage throughout the course of mediation, litigation, or trial. Don’t post anything about your case, the people you’ve interacted with since filing your claim, information or details about the accident or personal injury, or any compromising materials to your claim. When in any doubt about photos, videos or friends’ comments, do not make them available online until after the conclusion of your case.