Personal Injury news & Compensation Claim info

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.

THE French government has for the first time in nearly 50 years agreed to pay personal injury compensation to people affected by fallout from its nuclear tests.

The country has carried out 210 such tests since its first, exploded in the Algerian Desert in 1960, but has until now refused to pay out on personal injury claims.

It decision leaves the UK as the only nuclear power unprepared to settle personal injury claims, even though the High Court in London ruled last Friday that a group of more than 1,000 veterans has the right to sue the Ministry of Defence for compensation. However, the case is likely to take years to reach any conclusion.

Both soldiers and locals that witnessed the 1960 Saharan explosion say they were exposed to potentially deadly radiation and have suffered a variety of health problems, from aggressive cancers to minor cardio-vascular complaints. It is likely that they will now move ahead with personal injury claims.

Until now, only France had stood with the UK in denying general liability for health problems suffered by those present at nuclear tests. The US, Russia and China all have mechanisms in place for paying out personal injury claims.

PEOPLE bringing personal injury claims against US car giants General Motors and Chrysler have asked Congress to ensure that their cases won’t be forgotten and compensation can still be awarded after both companies filed for bankrupcy.

A number of consumer groups who have examined Chrysler’s bankrupcy ruling, which took place in New York at the end of May, say it absolves the new company of old responsibilities, including personal injury claims.

Now the Centre for Justice and Democracy has urged Congressional action to prevent any personal injury claims against GM being thrown out in the future.

Its executive director, Joanne Doroshow, has also called upon Chrysler to create a $300 million fund – and for GM to establish an even larger fund, because of its size – to cover an existing or future personal injury claims.

FOUR men have been found liable for causing personal injury in one of Northern Ireland’s worst bombings – the first time that personal injury legislation has been successfully brought involving a terrorist attack.

Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy, Seamus Daly and the Real IRA liable were found culpable in various ways for the Omagh bomb explosion in which 29 people and two unborn babies were killed in August 1998, and awarded personal injury damages worth £1.6m to family members who brought the action.

Delivering his verdict in the High Court in Belfast, Mr Justice Morgan said: “For many, the effects are catastrophic and their lives will never be the same.”

The plaintiffs claimed damages for personal injuries they received as a result of the bomb explosion, and also entered further claims for damages because of the death of family members, alleging that the defendants were responsible for the planning, production, planting and detonation of the bomb.

Mr Justice Morgan said that the court had only to decide if any personal compensation claim was valied, rather than determin any criminal charge. “The role of the court is to establish whether the plaintiffs have discharged the burden of demonstrating that the defendants were responsible for causing harm to the plaintiffs in the manner alleged and, if so, to determine what, if any, damages are payable in respect of the harm proved,” he added.