Feedback 2009
Set out below is a small selection of the feedback received during 2009.
Julie Price was injured in a road traffic accident.
The opposing insurers admitted legal liability at an early stage.
However they insisted upon getting a GP to write the medical report. Normally in a case such as this, the report of an orthopaedic surgeon is appropriate, despite the added expense.
As agreement could not be reached, we decided to issue proceedings. A sensible settlement was received fairly soon afterwards.
To read Ms Price's feedback, please click here. She also sent me a very nice card, shown here
Michele Hoskin was on holiday with her family in Turkey.
The family were staying at a hotel with extensive grounds, roughly 5 minutes from the beach.
In the grounds of the hotel was a flight of steps. These were crumbling and in poor condition.
While walking down the steps, the client slipped and fell. She suffered a dislocated ankle.
After that she underwent a long and painful period of medical treatment. She was finally discharged radically roughly 2.5 years after the accident.
After that we made a personal injury claim.
The question of liability was swiftly resolved. However, the defendants refused to make an interim payment. Eventually we had to obtain a court order to that effect.
Settlement was finally achieved, and the award included a sum to reflect the ruined holiday.
To read Mrs Hoskin's feedback, please click here and also here
Tim Cronin worked at a hospital in Southampton.
He had worked for the NHS for 36 years. During that time he had seldom taken a day off sick. Each morning Mr Cronin would park his car at a small onsite car park.
To get from the carpark to his office, Mr Cronin always descended an external metal staircase.
Over the years, the treads of the staircase had worn smooth. The accident happened early one November morning. It was just getting light. Overnight rain had fallen, and the staircase was wet.
Mr Cronin was descending the staircase as usual. Without warning, his feet slipped out from underneath him. He fell to the bottom of the steps.
Following the accident, the hospital put up a sign, warning that the staircase was slippery. After that they added an abrasive surface to each step.
I visited Mr Cronin at his workplace, and he showed me the newly renovated staircase: Photo 1, Photo 2, Photo 3
As a result of the accident, the client sustained soft tissue injuries. Medical investigations revealed that the injuries had caused the acceleration of an underlying condition.
After that we made a personal injury claim.
Following the issuing of county court proceedings, a sensible settlement was achieved with the hospital's solicitors, based in Exeter.
To read Mr Cronin's feedback, please click here
Richard Read runs a Gite business in France, with his wife.
Before that the couple lived in the East Midlands, where Mr Read had a temporary job as a warehouse manager.
The accident took place when he was helping to take delivery of some goods, which had arrived by lorry. The trolley he was using had very small wheels, and the loading ramp leading to the warehouse was steep and uneven. A forklift truck should really have been provided.
While trying to pull the trolley to overcome the lip of the ramp, Mr Read stumbled and suffered soft tissue injuries.
After that we made a personal injury claim.
The question of liability was swiftly resolved. However, the medical evidence was less straightforward. Briefly, the defendants did not accept that an accident of that type could have caused injuries persisting for so long.
Eventually proceedings were issued, whereupon sensible settlement proposals were received swiftly.
To read Mr Read's feedback, please click here
Jean Hawkins is an Australian businesswoman.
On the day of her accident, she and her husband were visiting Warwick Castle, as part of a European tour.
Near the booking office were some old gateposts. Usually plant pots stood in front of the gateposts, so that visitors would walk round and not trip over. However on this occasion the plant pots were missing.
Mrs Hawkins tripped over one of the gateposts and fractured both wrists.
After that we made a claim against the castle. Their insurers admitted primary liability, but they tried to shift part of the blame onto Mrs Hawkins. They said that she was not paying attention to where she was going.
After some detailed correspondence, the insurers backed down and agreed to settle the claim of a 100% basis.
A supporting orthopaedic opinion was obtained from Australian consultant orthopaedic surgeon, after which a sensible settlement was achieved.
To read Mrs Hawkins' feedback, please click here. She also sent me a very nice card, shown here and here
Miroslaw Janik is a Polish labourer, living in Southampton.
On the day of the accident he was undertaking refurbishment and extension work inside a building in Petersfield, Hampshire. He was working under the supervision of a British foreman.
Part of the works involved installing a new roof. This involved hoisting metal roof girders up through the inside of the building.
Mr Janik does not speak English. Using hand gestures, the foreman indicated that he should lean his ladder against one of the ceiling beams and then use a large hammer to "bash" the beams apart, so making a wide enough gap for the metalwork to pass through.
The difficulty was that the ladder (with Mr Janik standing on it) was resting against one of the beams that he was told to strike. The foreman was standing on the floor above, looking down and directing operations.
Mr Janik started striking the wooden beam, as directed. On about the third strike, the beam jumped sufficiently to overcome the tip of the ladder resting against it. The ladder collapsed, taking Mr Janik with it.
He fell to the ground below, suffering a severe ankle injury.
A compensation claim was made against the employers. Liability was denied. In support of the denial, they disclosed a copy of their accident report. This stated that Mr Janik was acting of his own accord, and he was blameworthy for failing to secure the ladder.
Faced with this self-serving and untruthful account, litigation insurance was arranged as a prelude to issuing court proceedings. However at this stage the opposing insurers suddenly changed their attitude and conceded liability. Settlement was achieved subsequently without recourse to proceedings.
To my mind, this case exemplifies in clear terms the cynical attitude exhibited by many British construction firms towards their non-English-speaking employees. The foreman must have been fully aware that he was placing Mr Janik in great danger. Then, having caused the accident, he made a crude attempt to evade responsibility.
To read Mr Janik's feedback, please click here
Jose Costa is a businessman in Warwickshire.
On the morning of the accident, a lorry was due to call at his house to collect a quantity of parcels. To assist the delivery men, Mr Costa was in the process of transferring the parcels to outside the front of his house.
The pavement nearby was uneven. The problem was caused by a tree root, which had created a hazardous tripping point. The hazard was of long standing. Several neighbours said that they had previously complained unsuccessfully to the local council.
While transporting the parcels, my client tripped and fell. He suffered a fractured ankle. As a result his business was seriously disrupted.
I visited Mr Costa and his fiancee, and they showed me the hazard, shown here: Photo 1, Photo 2, Photo 3, Photo 4, Photo 5
A compensation claim was made against the local authority. Various neighbours gave statements, and these were submitted in support of the claim.
Did the local authority make a swift admission of liability? Did they take all steps to agree a sensible settlement? Absolutely not. Instead, there then followed the most extraordinary battle.
The defendants firstly blamed my client 50%. Secondly they alleged that the accident had taken place somewhere else. Thirdly they insinuated that my client had serious character failings. Fourthly they refused to make any offers until the eve of trial, whereupon sensible settlement proposals were finally forthcoming.
Local authorities complain long and hard about compensation claims made against them. But in a genuine claim such as this, what possible justification did the local authority have for such obstructive tactics?
To read Mr Costa's feedback, please click here
Shahin Karanxha is an Albanian bricklayer in London.
On the day of the accident, Mr Karanxha was working on a building site. While he was walking along some scaffolding boards, he stepped onto a board that was rotten. This gave way beneath him.
As a result Mr Karanxha fell a vertical distance of 2 m, suffering injuries to his chest and arms.
A compensation claim was made firstly against the direct employers, and secondly against the main contractors on site. Surprisingly quickly, the employers came forward and conceded liability.
This case was noteworthy because swift and sensible discussions took place, resulting in appropriate compensation being offered and accepted.
To read Mr Karanxha's feedback, please click here
Drew Cummings was working at a garden centre.
On the day of the accident, his supervisor required him to place a large heavy box onto a shelf, roughly 10 feet above ground level, using a ladder. Under EU law, there are guidelines governing safe maximum weights for lifting, and these were comfortably exceeded.
While balancing the box on his shoulder as he ascended the ladder, Mr Cummings suffered a back injury.
A compensation claim was made against the employers. They referred the matter to their insurers, who then did absolutely nothing, presumably hoping that the claim would go away. In the end we issued an application for pre-action disclosure, resulting in a court order being successfully obtained. Despite this, the opposing insurers still refused to say whether or not they admitted blame for the accident.
Medical evidence was obtained, and the orthopaedic surgeon confirmed that the accident had caused the injury. This aspect is often contested in back injury claims.
At this point the opposing insurers suddenly sprang to life. After months of torpor, there was suddenly a flurry of correspondence. First of all they said that my client had been "less than honest". Then they said that they doubted the accident caused the injury. They also served a statement from the supervisor, claiming that the accident had not been reported. Finally they invited my client to withdraw his claim completely.
By this stage it was obvious that no sensible discussions were capable of taking place with the opposing insurers. Accordingly we issued county court proceedings without further ado. As so often happens, as soon as the insurers passed their file of papers to their solicitors, reasonable negotiations began. Liability was swiftly conceded. A sensible offer was made, and upon that basis settlement was achieved.
British insurance companies, through their television advertising, always like to portray themselves as being friendly and approachable. But when there is a legitimate claim, they frequently try to use "every trick in the book" to evade payment. The insurers in this case were incapable of participating in sensible discussions. At the end of the day, county court proceedings were the only language they understood.
To read Mr Cummings' feedback, please click here. He and his wife also sent me a very nice card, shown here and here
Cristinel Ilie is a Romanian labourer, who lives in London. He is married with four children. He speaks poor English.
On the day of his accident, his employers had sent him to work at a house, where an extension was being constructed.
His employers were a small family firm. Normally working on site were the boss, a British excavator driver, a Polish labourer and finally Mr Ilie.
As part of his job, Mr Ilie had to transport debris from the back of the house to the front, using a wheelbarrow. A mini dumper truck was also on site. To see the general type, click here.
Before the accident Mr Ilie had driven the dumper truck for one day only. He had received no formal training. He was told simply to "be careful" and "drive easy".
The ground in the area was very uneven. Furthermore the dumper truck had a very narrow wheelbase. When fully loaded, the dumper truck felt unstable. Secondly the accelerator pedal was defective, and it kept sticking in the "down" position.
On the afternoon of the accident, the boss had gone home. The Polish worker and Mr Ilie were the only people remaining on site. Before leaving the site, the boss told Mr Ilie to continue driving the dumper truck.
On about the fourth journey, the dumper truck toppled over. It fell onto Mr Ilie's left leg. He was trapped from the knee downwards. After several minutes he struggled free.
The boss returned to the site and took Mr Ilie to hospital. On the way there, the boss confessed that exactly the same thing had happened to him a few days before, when the dumper truck toppled over while he was driving it. The boss said that on that occasion he had been thrown clear and was not trapped.
Mr Ilie had x-rays at hospital, which revealed a fractured ankle and two broken toes.
After that we made a personal injury claim. The solicitors on the other side failed to respond to the claim initially. For this reason we issued an application for pre-action disclosure. A suitable court order was obtained, after which the opponents conceded primary liability.
Despite admitting most of the blame, the opposing solicitors said that Mr Ilie was partly at fault. They said that he had failed to follow his instructions. Mr Ilie said this was completely untrue.
We obtained a supporting medical report from an orthopaedic surgeon. A calculation of financial losses was also prepared, and these were served on the opponents. As there was no response within 21 days, we made arrangements to issue county court proceedings. However at the very last minute the opponents made suitable settlement proposals. These were agreed, and Mr Ilie received a good level of compensation.
In my opinion, this case demonstrates clearly the type of problems that Romanian workers can often face, while working in the UK. First of all, many Romanian workers do not speak very good English. Due to language difficulties, Romanian workers are at a major disadvantage in explaining how the accident happened.
Secondly, many Romanian workers feel very insecure at work. In this case, Mr Ilie was ordered to drive a defective and unstable dumper truck. Despite the danger, he felt that he had no alternative but to obey his orders.
To read Mr Ilie's feedback (in Romanian), please click here
Boris Kremer, 2009 blog, UK personal injury lawyer