After three years of negotiations, An Arctic cruise ship operator that ventured dangerously close to a glacier admits liability for the accident claim the manoeuvre caused.
The cruise was circumnavigating the Norwegian Svalbard islands in order to showcase the beautiful wildlife and sights in the area to its passengers when the incident that lead to the personal injury claim occurred. As the ship pulled up alongside the Hornbreen glacier in order to get a close look at the gargantuan floating island of ice, the glacier went through a process called “calving” where a large piece breaks off the surface and falls into the ocean. The ship was caught in the aftermath of the calving, causing it to be buffeted by a large wave that resulted in the ship listing 45 degrees and sending its passengers scattering across the deck like ninepins.
Kent Councillor Julian Benington was one of those injured in the iceberg calving incident. Now after a three year legal battle with personal injury lawyers, the Councillor has finally come out on top in his tussle with the operator of the cruise ship in his battle for personal injury compensation.
This declaration of victory has been made because Discover the World Ltd, the operator of the tour, has admitted liability for the incident. While there had originally been a trial set to determine responsibility for the incident for March of next year, after this latest development it will no longer be a necessity.
One of sixteen injured cruise ship passengers, Councillor Benington and his fellow group claim members are predicted to soon be in receipt of the personal injury compensation they have been seeking for the past three years. Among the injured was the Councillor’s wife, Valerie, as well.
After having no choice but to issue a profit warning recently, the wheels may be falling off Helphire, an accident claim handling firm.
The company, based in Bath, has declared that both its full-year profits and its revenues will face significant losses. The announcement sent its shares into a tailspin, resulting in a closing figure of £21.50. The total loss was a 28 per cent drop.
The company mostly pointed to a combination of good weather and high petrol garage prices, which have led to fewer crashes being suffered by motorists.
Providing services for road accident claims, Helphire supplies so-called ‘blameless’ motorists involved in an accident with interim cars while it handles the repairs on any pranged autos. Helphire additionally offers legal help for preparing any personal injury claims that may have been incurred during the accident.
However this is not the first time the firm has been in hot water. At the height of the credit crisis two years ago, the company nearly shuttered as it reeled from the loss of its largest customer, Saga and AA owner Acromas.Saga.
Since that date, 1,200 employees have been made redundant, two instances of rescue fundraising efforts have been attempted, and two chief executive officers have come and gone as well.
Despite successes related to the firm’s efforts to undergo major overhauls earlier in the year, business has still been bleak for the traffic accident claim help provider. Recently company head Martin Ward stated that he had hopes that business would become more brisk, as the seasons turn to the winter, which traditionally has been a period of the year when crashes tend to happen more often. Pre-tax profits for the firm however are estimated to be approximately £13.9 million, which compares unfavorably to the £21 million predictions made by analysts.
A landscape gardener from the town of Walsall in the West Midlands has recently filed a work accident claim against his employers after an accident left him without the use of his sight.
When the accident claim occurred, 25 year old Ashley Brabbin was operating a ride-on mower whilst trimming a verge at Erdington’s Wyrley Birch Allotments. While Mr Brabbin states that he made sure to check for any debris before begging to mow the lawn, he received a blinding injury to his right eye by a flying piece of metal shortly afterwards.
Due to his injuries, not only has Mr Brabbin been left without sight in his eye but he may need to be fitted with a glass eye as a result of the extensive damage he sustained whilst on the job.
Mr Brabbin’s personal injury claim against his employers is based upon the failure of the green services provider, based in Chorley, to provide for his safety in an adequate manner. Since his employer failed to provide protective eyewear to Mr Brabbin as he conducted his work-related tasks, he has decided to hold them liable for the incident that may have left him permanently without sight in one eye.
Should Mr Babbin be awarded damages from his compensation claim, the company’s insurance company will be responsible for paying him whatever the courts decide the loss of his vision is worth.
Mr Babbin’s personal injury lawyer commented on the case’s progress by stating that while settlement may still be quite some time in the future, the admittance of liability is a clear step in the right direction.
Industry experts agree that without further knowledge of the facts of the case, it is simply too early to determine Mr Babbin’s chances of reaching a settlement from the green services company that had employed him at the time of the accident.
Thanks to a serious injury he sustained whilst working in September of 2003, a Cumbrian farm worker was recently awarded a personal injury compensation in excess of £70,000.
The personal injury at work occurred seven years ago when, while amidst harvesting potatoes as an employee of Mr. William Brown, Mr Stephen Hyndman was caught in a harvesting machine accident.
Noticing that the machine had become blocked, the then 28-year-old Hyndman attempted to clear the blockage. Unfortunately for Mr Hyndman power to the machine had not been cut properly by his colleague, and as a result of his trousers becoming caught in the machinery he was dragged in. Mr Hyndman suffered serious injuries to both his foot and leg, which were crushed. In his personal injury claim My Hyndman stated that he was permanently disabled as a result of the accident.
Once Mr Hyndman had taken his employer to court in order to receive compensation for his accident claim, the courts concurred that liability for the accident, and its consequences, lied firmly at Mr Brown’s feet. In addition to being ordered to remit payment of £71,000 to his former employee in compensation, Mr Brown was also found to be in breach of a 1998 regulation concerning the provision and use of work equipment.
Simon Davis, a personal injury specialist, commented on the case by stating that agricultural industry accidents have a tendency to cause very serious injuries. Due to both the temporary setup of the equipment and how powerful it is sometimes mean the requisite checks to safety are not made, Mr Davis said.
As farm work is something that occurs not only in all conditions but in every season of the year, Mr Davis continued, it is necessary to supply extra layers of vigilance in order to prevent tragic occurrences such as the maiming of Mt Hyndman.
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has recently stated his intention that Welsh and English lawyers may soon be barred from raising their fees if successfully litigating a no win no fee accident claim.
As no win no fee lawyers can currently double any fees in the event that they win a case, Secretary Clarke’s intentions, if they bear fruit, could completely change the accident claim landscape.
In order to rectify matters however the minister, whilst speaking on Law In Action on BBC Radio 4, explained how the Coalition government is currently considering adopting a system that shares similarities with the US in which a percentage of legal fees from any personal injury claim can be recovered from any damages that may be awarded to the case’s plaintiff.
Earlier in 2010, Lord Justice Jackson made news when he published his widely-read review of the UK’s current fee system. Mr Clarke stated that the recommendations contained within the review were found to have a high level of attractiveness to the government.
The UK insurance industry has been heavily impacted by a rise in lawyers who employ so-called “ambulance chaser” tactics.
In fact due in part to a large rise in personal injury claims made by third parties and a claims management industry that has become much more aggressive as of late, the UK personal motor car insurance market is unlikely to turn a profit for several years. Towers Watson conducted research recently on the issue, which led to the conclusion that it may be 2015 before the motor insurance market is back in the black.
Industry experts agree that the irony of the government’s possible adoption of American-style fee guidelines is palpable, given that many of the no win no fee lawyers in the UK are considered to employ litigation tactics made popular by their American counterparts.
One injured street cleaner who sustained an injury to his finger recently expressed his amazement when the local council allowed the work accident claim balloon to more than £100,000 in compensation.
In May of 2006 Steven Threlfall was working as a street cleaner when a jagged piece of metal that had been inside a rubbish bag he was handling protruded through and sliced deeply into his little finger. As a result of the personal injury claim, Mr Threlfall is now left with a crooked finger thanks to one of his tendons being sliced through.
Mr Threlfall filed an accident claim for his work-related injury. He made the claim that his hands were not properly protected because the gloves that had been provided to him proved to be ineffective in preventing the injury.
Legal costs relating to the case quickly began piling up. Finally, after a third and final hearing at the Civil Appeal Court in London, three of the UK’s senior judges declared the claim in favour of the street cleaner. The opinion of the court was indeed that Mr Threlfall had been denied the adequate levels of protection he needed in order to perform his job duties safely.
As a result of the accident claim, Mr Threlfall received compensation of only £3,000; legal costs for the council are valued in excess of £100,000, however, since top Judges in the UK were used by both sides of the lawsuit.
In an interview after the end of the hearings, Mr Threlfall was quoted as saying that the entire ordeal would have been over and done with in less than half a year, but the council refused to admit negligence.
When pressed, Mr Threlfall also stated that he was incredulous over how high the costs had become over just his little finger.
A female tube passenger is set to seek personal injury compensation after bring injured in a train carriage accident that resulted in several other injuries.
The incident, which involves an accident claim in which the passenger was on the receiving end of several facial injuries when a wood and canvas barrier linking two carriages became loosened, occurred at Mile End station last November during morning rush hour in London.
The passenger was sent to hospital to be treated for a two-inch long head gash and a cut to her eye. Two other passengers were also injured in the accident, yet no details have surfaced regarding any injuries they might have sustained.
The Office of Rail Regulation is also persecuting the London Underground due to the injury claims. The Underground may be facing fines of up to £20,000 for the accident, according to insider reports.
Mr Mike Stzelecki, a spokesperson for the tube operator, stated that the faulty barrier had been detected, but the London Underground failed to make a prompt and efficient removal of the barrier. Additionally the operator made the admission that they did breach the Health and Safety At Work Act. As a result, the injured woman has made a personal injury claim in order to be compensated for the suffering and pain she endured during the accident.
Following the accident however, several industry experts have come forward to reassure Tube passengers as to the safety of the transportation method. As in excess of a billion commute by Tube on a yearly basis, the transport method is still one of the safest ways to travel on a statistical basis.