Feedback 2008
Set out below is a small selection of the feedback received during 2008.
Brian Aston is a lorry driver.
He turned up for work one dark winter morning. His refrigerated lorry was located in a lorry park near West Bromwich, in the West Midlands.
Unfortunately the lorries had been parked very close together. So close together in fact that that he found it difficult to get inside his cab. The lorry park was without illumination.
Mr Aston opened the cab door as wide as possible. Unfortunately while squeezing in through the narrow gap, he slipped and suffered a hand injury.
A compensation claim was made against the employers. Their insurers denied liability. Furthermore they contested the claim strenuously, blaming Mr Aston for the accident.
Supporting evidence was requested from the specialist transport division of Mr Aston's trade union. Unfortunately the TU could not be persuaded to assist their fraternal member.
Evidential assistance was finally received from a most helpful and professional lorry driver training school, in Surrey.
Eventually, on the eve of trial, the defendants' solicitors advanced settlement terms. Negotiations then took place, and Mr Aston received appropriate damages.
To read Mr Aston's feedback, please click here
Jane Hills was on holiday with her husband in the Seychelles.
Their holiday bungalow had a sunbathing area outside. The floor area consisted of wooden decking.
The couple were arranging themselves on their sun loungers at the start of the holiday. In the process of doing so, one of Mrs Hills' feet went right through a decking plank.
As a result, her leg became wedged. With difficulty her husband managed to get her free, and they summoned medical assistance immediately.
An employee of the hotel complex attended. He confessed that there had been previous similar problems.
A compensation claim was made against the tour operator. They denied liability, but nevertheless confirmed that they wished to negotiate a settlement.
Due to the nature of the injury, it was not possible immediately to obtain a final medical prognosis. However once this stage had been reached, settlement was negotiated. The compensation included damages for disappointment.
To read Mrs Hills' feedback, please click here
Allan Dixon was employed by a haulage firm in Lincoln, as a lorry driver.
On the day of the accident, he had driven down to a building site in Norwich. Upon arrival, he was required to unload some scaffolding tubes.
Normally a banksman should have been provided, to assist with the unloading. However on the day of the accident, nobody was available. Mr Dixon therefore had no alternative but to unload the lorry himself.
The lorry contained a crane, controlled by a handheld remote control. Unfortunately, to compound the difficulties, the remote control unit was defective.
So as to accomplish the unloading, Mr Dixon found himself having to climb on and off the lorry repeatedly. In doing so, he slipped and fell to the ground, suffering a serious elbow injury.
A compensation claim was made against his employers. Their solicitors admitted primary liability, but they argued forcefully that Mr Dixon was partly to blame.
Protracted discussions took place, resulting in an unattractive settlement offer being made.
Accordingly county court proceedings were issued. Upon this step being taken, the opposing solicitors rapidly backtracked and finally advanced sensible proposals. Settlement was achieved soon afterwards.
To read Mr Dixon's feedback, please click here
Kevin Porter was employed by a building company as an after sales maintenance joiner.
His accident happened while he was undertaking remedial work in the small loft of a garden room at a private residence in North Yorkshire. Had scaffolding being available and the tiles removed, he would have been able to work more safely.
Due to the restricted space, Mr Porter suffered a knee injury.
A claim was made against his employers, but they refused to acknowledge the correspondence, or to refer the matter to their insurers.
Accordingly a court application was issued for pre-action disclosure. Faced with the prospect of an imminent court hearing, the defendants finally notified their insurers.
Liability was admitted shortly afterwards.
After an extended period of medical investigations, an independent medical report was obtained in order to assess the likely prognosis for the injury. This was served on the defendants together with a calculation of financial losses. Settlement was achieved a short while after.
To read Mr Porter's feedback, please click here
Carol Hopkins lives in the Sheldon area of Birmingham, and she was returning home from work one afternoon.
She was in the process of crossing the road outside her house. At that precise spot, there is a concrete island in the middle of the road, with bollards.
Ms Hopkins crossed the first lane, which was filled with stationary traffic. She paused at the central island and then looked to her left to see if any traffic was approaching. The road was clear, so she started to cross.
Without warning, she was struck suddenly by a car on the wrong side of the road. The driver had been trying to overtake the line of stationary traffic. In the process, the car had been passing the wrong side of the island.
A claim was made against the driver. His insurers admitted primary liability, but unbelievably they tried to blame Ms Hopkins in part, for failing to look to her right.
Protracted correspondence took place with the defendant insurers, who maintained that she should have looked both ways before crossing the road. They conveniently ignored the fact that no reasonable person would expect a car to be passing the wrong side of a central island.
Faced with this unreasonable stance, we decided to issue county court proceedings.
The insurance company in question instructed their solicitors. The latter rapidly advanced more sensible settlement proposals and overall agreement was reached shortly afterwards.
To read Ms Hopkins' feedback, please click here
Boris Kremer, UK personal injury lawyer