#psrsolicitors

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

Government to review personal injury discount rate

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has confirmed that the Government will be reviewing the discount rate that is attached to compensation in certain personal injury claims. The discount rate is deducted from compensation in order that the amount the claimant receives (as a lump sum) is the correct amount bearing in mind that if it is invested there will be a return on that investment. The discount rate is therefore applied to try an ensure that the claimant is in the same position financially as they would have been had the accident not occurred and is not overcompensated. At present the discount rate is 2.5% and is calculated in line with the yield of Index Linked Government GILT's. Campaigners, including APIL who threatened a Judicial Review on the matter, have long argued that this rate is out of date due to the steady decrease in the yields of GILTs over the last few years. Campaigners have argued that as a result of this personal injury claimants have lost out on hundreds of thousands of pounds that they should have been entitled to. The government consultation invites comments from all sides of the personal injury sector and will close on the 23rd October.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

Personal injury under further attack by doctors

Now it appears that doctors are blaming personal injury solicitors for an increase in claims for compensation as a result of clinical negligence.  This is according to Chris Evans, Chairman of the Medical Defence Union.

As with any other type of claim such compensation claims are only successful if negligence has occurred on behalf of the doctor or the health authority.  As such if these claims are successful then it means that the doctors have not performed their job properly and the civil legal system was designed so that in such cases the injured party would receive compensation.  

The second factor to be taken into account is that if people are aware they can be sued they take more care and responsibility and if they make a mistake on one occasion they make sure that that mistake is not repeated.  As such personal injury solicitors act for the public as a counterbalance for people who negligently injure them.

We therefore find it hard to have sympathy with the MDU when some of the cases we see regarding medical negligence highlight great incompetence and low standards of care.  Quite simply if no negligence has occurred then no compensation or legal costs are paid out. This seems to be a fair system and if the doctors have done nothing wrong then there is no reason to be concerned.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

Joyce v Tradex Insurance Company Limited [2012]

In the above case the High Court found against a Claimant on the basis of the legal maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (a cause of action cannot be founded on an illegal act). In an unusual set of circumstances the Claimant brought an action against his Uncle who was driving a van. Both the Claimant and his Uncle had been involved in stealing a ladder. Following the theft the Uncle had driven the van away with the Claimant stood on the back of the van, standing on the footplate, carrying the ladder and holding on to either the roof or the door whilst the other door was open and flapping about. The Defendant was found to have driven recklessly around a bend and at this point the Claimant lost his balance, fell off the van and onto the road. The Claimant brought an action against his Uncle claiming that it was his Uncle's negligent driving that caused him to sustain injury. The Court found against the Claimant on two points. One being on the basis of the above maxim, that is leading up to the accident the Claimant had been engaged in a criminal pursuit and the risk the Claimant took was inherent in the criminal enterprise. The Court found that the Defendant could not owe a duty of care to his own co-conspirator. The Claimant's own criminal activity therefore precluded him from successfully claiming. In addition the Court found against the Claimant on causation as they found that although the Defendant's reckless driving was partly to blame for the accident, just as much to blame were the actions of the Claimant in standing on the back of the van in the manner he did and to a large extent he was therefore the author of his own misfortune.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

Government to re-consider plans to abolish the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority

It has been confirmed that the Government is to reconsider it's decision to relax the regulation of adventure activities for Children.  The Legislation was brought in following the Lyme Bay tragedy in 1993.  The existing legislation requires an adventure activity provider to hold a licence to carry out such activities.  Safety campaigners have been concerned that if the act were to be abolished then this could give rise to poor regulation of providers and with it an increased risk of children participating in adventure activities being injured. 

Karl Tonks of the Association of Personal Injury Solicitors (APIL)  has recently stated "What is needed now is for policymakers in Westminster to see sense and follow the example of their Scottish counterparts, who recently agreed to retain the current regulation in Scotland and reject the ill-thought-through proposal to water it down.

"The truth is, proper health and safety is not some sort of straitjacket which prevents children from taking risks. Instead it helps children to take part in activities without being put in unnecessary jeopardy.

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, confirmed that a rethink of the planned abolition comes about having listened to concerns expressed from within the industry.  A consultation with the HSE about this matter is due to take place later this year.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

OFT Investigation to turn tide on insurance companies?

The Office of Fair Trading recently concluded its 5 month investigation into the insurance industry.  This investigation focussed on the level of motor insurance premiums.

As you are aware the insurers routinely blame personal injury solicitors and claimants themselves for leading to an increase in motor insurance premiums however the OFT has stated that the insurers themselves may push up premiums by over 200 million pounds per year.

Let's hope the insurers now try and clean up their own industry rather than pass the buck onto ours.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

What Personal Injury Claimants Want

PSR Solicitors has gathered together some of the comments made by our clients as regards the claims process and there are several clearly identifiable areas which we believe should be reformed:

1. No one should be contacting the client by text/phone call/e-mail randomly asking if they have had an accident and quoting unsupported figures for their compensation - even members of staff at PSR Solicitors have received such random texts which surely contravene the Data Protection Act. 

2. No insurance company/broker should be able to sell the clients claim to anyone without the express written permission of that person - we often have clients complaining that they are bombarded with calls from solicitors and claims companies often within minutes of reporting their accident to their own insurance company

3. TV advertising should be banned/controlled - such advertising with its calls to action clearly encourages spurious and speculative claims. If someone is injured let them find a solicitor if they want to pursue a claim.

4. Delay - Clients want a quick smooth process. The removal of ATE from the marketplace will help and the RTA Portal has had some limited success but overall the delay is often with the insurance companies.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

PIP Implants Update

PIP Implants declared to be sub-standard but do not pose a long term health risk

Following the scare into the French made PIP Breast implants earlier this year the UK Government requested that Bruce Keogh, medical director of Britain's National Health Service investigate the implants and the possible risks to the approximate 47,000 British women who are believed to have had the implants.

Following concluding his investigations Mr Keogh has reported that studies showed that although the PIP implants were more likely to rupture than other brands of implants they do not pose a risk to the future health of the women who have them.  Mr Keogh has stated that if a women fears that she may have a ruptured implant she should firstly consult her GP who will then, if necessary, refer her to a specialist.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

Child car seats and contributory negligence

In September 2006 the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seatbelts) (Amendment) Regulations came into force.  This obliged children under 12 years of age or under 135 centimetres in height to be supplied with an appropriate car seat when being driven in a motor vehicle.  The plethora of recommendations in this area does appear to lead to some confusion to parents in ensuring that they obtain the correct seat for their child but the consequences of not getting it correct can result in a finding of contributory negligence in the unfortunate event of a road traffic accident.  This is highlighted in the decision reached in the recent case of Emma Hughes (by Anne Marie Armstrong) v Estate of Dayne Joshua Williams, deceased (Defendant) and Louise Williams (Third Party) [2012] EWHC

In the Hughescase Justice Blair held that the mother of the child claimant was negligent in using a booster seat for her 3 year old son on a car journey instead of a child seat, which would have been more appropriate.  The son sustained injuries as a result of a car accident that was caused by the negligence of the third party.  The Court held that the injuries the child sustained would have been largely avoided had he been in a child seat and that it was therefore appropriate for the child's mother to contribute 25% towards her sons damages to reflect her negligence in not obtaining an appropriate seat.  This case acts as a warning to all parents that the Courts will vigorously hold that parents should strictly adhere to the laws relating to child car seats.