The Law Blog

Archive for April, 2011

Photo Courtesy of First4Lawyers

Personal injury claims firm First4Lawyers have launched an iPhone application that will help users to record vital details of a collision at the roadside, speeding up the claims process.

Free and very easy to use, the Accident Toolkit iPhone and iPad app guides users through the four simple steps, helping them document all the information necessary to make a good case for a successful insurance claim against the other party.

Road traffic accidents are traumatic and nerve-wracking affairs at the best of times and, understandably, this is where countless road users lose the ability to think quickly. Many fail to record crucial incident information that could make the difference between a claim being either successful or unsuccessful.

Accident Toolkit utilises the iPhone or iPad’s photographic and sound-recording facilities, walking users through logging other driver and witness contact details, taking photographs of the scene and recording voice statements from multiple witnesses.

In a matter of minutes, the four steps will be completed and sent to the Accident Toolkit team. Within 30 minutes, the user will be contacted by one of Accident Toolkit’s insurance experts to discuss their claim, after which any updates to the case will be sent directly to the user’s phone.

One of the first users to review the application, new driver Dawn Drummond was involved in an accident two weeks after passing her test, and swears by the app’s effectiveness.

She said: “I was hit on a roundabout by a man driving a white transit, I was visibly upset but remembered I had the toolkit on my iPhone.

“In about 5 minutes I was able to take images of the scene, and a very nice man walking his dog recorded a witness statement stating it was the van man’s fault. The Accident Toolkit team were on the phone to me straight away after I sent my claim form and they have been first class with my vehicle repairs and my hire vehicle.”

The free app can be downloaded here http://www.accident-toolkit.com/

Photo Courtesy of comedy_nose via Flickr

Thames Valley Police has announced that preparations are being made to reactivate a battery of speed cameras across Oxfordshire, in a bid to curb rising road traffic accident casualties.

In total, the force intends to turn on 72 fixed and 89 mobile speed cameras that have been left idle for nine months. Last year, on the 1st August, Oxfordshire County Council made headlines by announcing that it would withdraw funding for road safety operations, prompting the 161 cameras to be deactivated.

The issue of speed cameras is one that attracts a considerable amount of debate, with opinion divided on whether the devices are beneficial to the public. On the one hand, many motorists would argue that speed cameras constitute an unnecessary distraction that give rise to a stealth road tax. On the other, road safety campaigners would contend that there is a correlation between reducing speed and saving lives.

Of course, nobody is likely to enjoy receiving a fine for speeding, especially in today’s turbulent economy. However, does the fact that speed cameras generate income for local authorities preclude them being of benefit to the public? The answer is obvious: speed cameras are worth every penny if they help to save lives on roads across the country.

Despite electing to turn off the cameras last year after the Government withdrew central funding, Oxfordshire County Council has appeared to change its position on the issue by reactivating the devices as of the 1st April 2011. The decision may result in fewer accident claims being made on roads across the county.

Head of roads policing for Thames Valley, Superintendent Rob Povey, said: “We think this is important because we know that speed kills and speed is dangerous. We have shown in Oxfordshire that speed has increased through monitoring limits and we have noticed an increase in fatalities and the number of people seriously injured in 2010. We know that speed enforcement does work as a deterrent to motorists.”

Commenting on the decision to reactivate the speed cameras, Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “Speed cameras are controversial, but work done for us suggests that nationally each year they save 800 people from being killed or seriously injured. Today’s decision will be welcomed by the majority of drivers who back their use. Speed cameras are certainly not the only way of saving life on the roads, but Oxfordshire County Council has recognised they are part of it.”

The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has launched a scathing attack on ‘no win, no fee’ legal firms, suggesting that unscrupulous solicitors are behind a surge in frivolous personal injury claims.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4, Mr Clarke explained: “The cost of the claims has absolutely soared and it’s become a terrible burden for a lot of people who are sued. Businesses find it very expensive and particularly the NHS, which pays out a fortune in lawyers’ fees every year because of the way it’s been changed.

“We are not getting rid of ‘no win, no fee,’ we are going back to the way in which it started in the 1990s. There were changes made in 1999 to make it more attractive and they, unfortunately, have gone too far, they’ve led to an explosion in the cost.”

One of the changes proposed by Mr Clarke is that solicitors whose cases prove successful in court must take their fees from the damages awarded to clients – a move that is likely to be seen as a backwards step by those who are concerned about equity and justice. Damages are awarded in personal injury claims to compensate the victims of negligence, so it would seem somewhat unfair that the compensation itself must be shared between clients and solicitors.

Photo Courtesy of conservativeparty via Flickr

Another change proposed by the justice secretary is for small claims courts to increase the value of damages that may be awarded. At present, £5,000 can be awarded by such courts, but, if Mr Clarke’s plans go ahead, this figure could be increased to £15,000. Mr Clarke also wants more cases solved through formal mediation before court action is contemplated.

It might be argued that Mr Clarke’s apparently tough yet reasonable stance on the personal injury claims industry is necessary in order to prevent creating an overly litigious society. In truth, however, the proposed changes are unlikely to benefit the public interest, as changing the way in which no win, no fee legal firms operate, could deny thousands of potential claimants that which ought to be their most basic right: access to justice.

In a similar way as reducing the scope of no win, no fee, lawyers could limit the accessibility of justice to claimants, forcing solicitors to share damages would limit the remedies made available through the legal system. In effect, it is quite possible that courts would be forced to award inflated damages in order to adequately compensate for solicitors’ fees. Equally, fewer claimants may be provided with a realistic and affordable opportunity to pursue damages against a negligent person, company or organisation.

Photo Courtesy of Johnny Grim via Flickr

A burglar in the US who was arrested by New York police after breaking into a pizza restaurant, has been charged with criminal mischief. More importantly, the man escaped a fate far worse than prison: a fall into a hot-fat fryer.

Forty-six-year-old Timothy Cipriani, of New York, USA, decided to visit the nearby Paesano’s pizza joint on Friday. Unlike most other visitors to the restaurant, Mr Cipriani chose to enter the building by climbing a tree, gaining access to the roof and climbing through an air duct. Notwithstanding the deliciousness of pizza, Mr Cipriani had entered the building in this manner not because he was hungry, but because he intended to burgle the place. Unfortunately for Mr Cipriani, the air duct did not properly cater to his specific requirements.

After becoming stuck in the air duct, Mr Cipriani found himself dangling over a hot-fat fryer, which had been in use throughout the day and was therefore still very warm. Fearful of his imminent deep-fat death, the bungling burglar began to scream out in terror. John Risko, the general manager of the restaurant, was alerted to Mr Cipriani’s plight when a fire alarm was sounded in the building. Arriving at the restaurant, Mr Risko was stunned when he saw Mr Cipriani wedged in the air duct.

Mr Risko said: “I come in, turn off the alarms, take a peek into the kitchen and see this guy’s legs dangling out of the hood over the stove in the kitchen. I just started laughing.”

Lorenzo Scavio, the restaurant’s owner, added: “As he was coming down the hood, when he got to the bottom, he stepped on one of the pipes. The pipes burst, which triggered the alarm. These are tied to the fire suppression system over the stove and fryers.

“He was actually lucky that he tripped the fire system. If he didn’t, he would have probably died in there. I think he’s out of his mind. It doesn’t make any sense. We don’t keep any money in the store and you can’t pull the equipment out. What was he trying to rob? It just doesn’t make sense at all.”

Perhaps Mr Cipriani was hungry? Whatever the reason for targeting Paesano’s, the criminal was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. In theory, accident claims could be brought against restaurant owners who fail to erect adequate signage warning the public of hazards. Signage to discourage people from climbing into an air duct and dangling over a hot-fat fryer, however, is probably not necessary.

The UK Government’s plan to increase the speed limit on British motorways from 70mph to 80mph has come under fire from road safety charity Brake, which claimed that the move would probably cause an increase in fatal accidents.

The proposal to increase the motorway speed limit is due to come into effect by July, according to several media sources. Although the plan has not been confirmed in any official capacity, it has already managed to attract the attention of Brake, which is understandably concerned about the potential for increased road casualties.

Campaigns officer for Brake, Ellen Booth, noted: “It would be simply immoral to raise motorway speed limits when research indicates it would lead to more deaths and serious injuries, which cause devastating trauma to families and which are a considerable economic burden. It would also fly in the face of this Government’s commitment to lower carbon emissions. In short, a decision to raise the motorway limit would go against safety, environmental and financial sense.”

Ms Booth makes a compelling argument. Not only is it thought that a 10mph speed increase from 70mph to 80mph would cause a greater number of accident claims, the Transport Committee Report on Road Traffic Speed concluded that increasing the legal speed limit on motorways would probably worsen congestion. Research also suggests that a 10mph increase within this range would cause a 14 per cent rise in CO2 emissions for petrol cars and 25 per cent for diesel, while increasing fuel consumption at varying rates.

Photo Courtesy of Leo Reynolds via Flickr

Of course, the most significant danger of increasing the speed limit on motorways is that of increasing serious and fatal road accidents. Research has estimated that casualties of all kinds would increase by up to 10 per cent if the Government goes ahead with the plan to increase the motorway speed limit to 80mph. In context, a 10 per cent rise might increase the number of deaths recorded each year by around 200, or casualties of all severities could spike by as much as 22,000.

It is not clear what benefit an increased speed limit might bring to the British nation, but it perhaps ought to be noted that the existing 70mph limit is not strictly observed by all drivers in the UK. Indeed, it could be argued that most frequent motorway travellers already exceed 80mph routinely. Personal injury claims may increase if a higher proportion of motorists drive at the proposed legal limit of 80mph.

Photo Courtesy of jso888 via Flickr

To many road users, hit-and-run drivers are the scourge of modern society. Although any motorist can make a mistake, fleeing the scene of an accident is an offence for good reason. Not only can the actions of hit-and-run drivers cost lives, they also complicate the process of claiming compensation for accident victims. Fleeing the scene of an accident, however necessary it may seem to the offending driver at the time, is rarely the most sensible option – especially where the hit-and-run driver has pranged a pick-up truck whose owner desperately – really desperately – wants to exchange insurance details.

Recently, a hit-and-run driver crashed into a red pick-up truck at the junction of Garth and Sexton streets in Columbia, Missouri, USA. Rather than stop for a friendly chat about vehicle insurance, the offending motorist decided it would be prudent to rapidly depart from the scene. So the hit-and-run driver slammed on the accelerator, presumably in hope of leaving the stricken pick-up truck in a cloud of exhaust fumes and tyre rubber. Unfortunately for the hit-and-run motorist, the driver of the pick-up truck had no intention of letting him ride off into the sunset so easily. Consequently, the drivers embarked on a race through the streets of Columbia.

As the hit-and-run motorist, who was driving a blue Chrysler Sebring, ran a stop sign at the intersection of McBaine Avenue and Worley Street, the driver of the red pick-up truck followed closely. Speeding past the stop sign in hot pursuit of the hit-and-run driver, the owner of the red pick-up truck smashed into the side of a black Dodge Dakota, causing extensive damage to both vehicles. As if to complete the comedy of errors, the hit-and-run driver subsequently careered his Sebring into a plumbing truck that had stopped at the intersection. Two people were injured as a result of the collisions.

The circumstances of the present case may seem unusual but, in fact, hit-and-run drivers often cause additional incidents while fleeing the scene of the original accident. Within the same week, a hit-and-run motorist in New York City collided head-on with an ambulance as he attempted to flee an earlier smash.

Photo Courtesy of richardmasoner via Flickr

The road safety charity, Brake, has published details of a new survey that suggests around 10 per cent of school children in Scotland have been involved in collisions with cars or bicycles by the time they reach their thirteenth birthday. Shockingly, the survey further reveals that as many as 13 per cent of children aged 11 to 13 have been hit by a vehicle while walking or cycling – 6 per cent of children aged between 9 and 11 years were found to have suffered the same fate.

The publication of Brake’s latest survey will almost certainly upset many road safety campaigners and parents across Scotland and the UK. Official accident statistics suggest that fewer children were killed or seriously injured on roads throughout Britain last year. Accident claims involving adults reflects this emerging trend for improved road safety. However, if the findings of the Brake survey are reliable, it could be argued that the decrease in vehicle-related collisions that cause injury to children is purely a matter of good fortune and has little to do with improved road safety.

The survey also revealed that 51 per cent of respondents claimed to have experienced a “near miss” situation, in which they were almost struck by passing vehicles, while 22 per cent of children aged between 9 and 11 years and 11 per cent of students aged between 11 and 13 years, endured at least one “scary experience” with traffic. The study of 1,665 children comprised 728 pupils aged between 9 and 11 years selected from primary schools and 927 students aged between 11 and 13 years from secondary schools.

The number of incidents resulting in death or serious injury has fallen in Britain over the past few years. If a significant proportion of children continue to experience accidents involving vehicles, it is reasonable to suggest that official statistics will worsen in due course. Carrying out the research ahead of the Road Safety Week, Brake also discovered that only 29 per cent of primary school children and 19 per cent of secondary school students had not experienced a near miss, scary experience or actual collision. According to the survey, 87 per cent of respondents believe that motor vehicles travel “too fast” on roads surrounding schools and residential properties. After the UK coalition Government ended the central funding of speed cameras across England and Wales, it is likely that the risk of speeding drivers to children will increase over time.

According to the Health and Safety Executive, 121,430 workplace injuries were reported under RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995) in 2009/2010. Despite this seemingly high figure, which equates to an injury rate of 473 per 100,000 workers, a new study by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has suggested that many Britons are reluctant to bring personal injury claims against their employers after suffering workplace accidents.

APIL discovered that a quarter of surveyed workers would refuse to file accident claims against their bosses in the event of being seriously injured whilst using defective or dangerous equipment at work. Muiris Lyons, the president of APIL, which is a not-for-profit organisation, suggested that there are multiple reasons why employees might shy away from making personal injury claims in the workplace.

Ms Lyons said: “Many of us may have suffered an injury through no fault of our own at work but in the workplace there seems to be a real reluctance to make a claim in cases of negligence.” Explaining some of the reasons why employees could feel reluctant to pursue damages in the courts, Ms Lyons added: “Most employees will have built a rapport with their employer over a period of time and if a case of negligence occurs in the workplace, some individuals could feel embarrassed or think that there may be a stigma attached if they are seen making a claim against their employer. Some may fear that if they make a claim, their career may be put at risk or that they might be looked upon as a trouble maker.”

Ms Lyons also highlighted the negative public perception of the personal injury claims industry, which has evolved over many decades to provide justice to millions of people who have been injured or made ill as a result of somebody else’s negligence.

Ms Lyons aptly stated: “There seems be a perception that those making personal injury negligence claims are taking advantage of an unfortunate situation. And yet the reality is that the negative stigma attached to individuals making a claim if they’re injured in the workplace. is an unfair one.”

Unfortunately, inaccurate or misleading media reports on health and safety laws and the recent quest by Lord Young to ban or restrict personal injury law firms from advertising to potential claimants, have served to shape the public perception of a ‘compensation culture.’ Until this false and unnecessary stigma is changed, many accident victims in Britain will continue to suffer in silence.