#rta's

[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]

Low Velocity Impact RTA's

Armstrong v O'Connor v First York (2005)

The above case was heard in the Court of Appeal in 2005 and is an important case in the area of low velocity impact (LVI) claims.  LVI claims occur when a claimant involved in an RTA brings a claim for personal injury against the defendant and the defendant's insurers argue that the speed of the collision was so low that the claimant could not have been injured.  In order to argue this the defendant insurance companies rely upon reports prepared by (often) engineers who support the defendant's arguments.

  In the Armstrong case the two claimants brought an action for personal injury against the defendant following an RTA.  The defendant insurers argued LVI and relied upon the report of a forensic motor vehicle engineer who gave evidence to the face that the damage sustained to the claimant's car was so minimal the car could not have moved sufficiently for injury to be sustained.  The claimants simply relied upon their own evidence that the collision had happened and had caused them injury.  The original Trial Judge found for the claimants.  The Judge found the claimants to be honest and therefore rejected the engineers view on the basis that he must have made an error in his conclusions, albeit the Judge could not specify what the error was.

  The judgement was appealed by the defendants to the Court of Appeal.  The Court upheld the Judges approach and verdict.  The Court held there was no principle of law that required an expert's view on a matter to be preferred to the evidence of an eye witness and that there was no problem with a Judge rejecting an expert's evidence despite not being able to pinpoint a specific flaw in it. 

  In Low Velocity Impact cases therefore the Courts have upheld that it is reasonable for a Judge to find for the claimants if he is convinced in their honesty despite what contradictory expert evidence may claim.

[psrinjurysolicitors-co-uk-b-blog]

Car insurance renewal rip off

A report in The Sunday Times has highlighted an industry wide practice whereby insurers offer very low premiums for first time customers who are purchasing car insurance. However to recoup some of the money lost during the first year the insurers hike up the premium in the second year, some by as much as 110% more.

Research was conducted by Consumer Intelligence who surveyed 30,000 drivers which found an average increase of 25%. 

The advice from The Times and from Consumer Intelligence is that drivers should never automatically renew their car insurance, they should shop around for a new deal every year.

This adds further fuel to the fire that insurers overcharge motorists as it follows on from the scandal of the very expensive administration charges we highlighted recently.