10 Year Anniversary

Issue 24
September 2006

S.J. Edney solicitors were established in 1996 and are a niche Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury Practice. Seamus Edney is a member of the Action against Victims of Medical Accidents Solicitors Panel, the Law Society’s Clinical Negligence Panel and the Law Society’s Personal Injury Panel. The firm holds a Legal Aid Franchise in Clinical Negligence.

As a firm we are committed to acting for victims of accidents and Seamus Edney has 20 years experience of Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury work.

 

ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT STATISTICS

An important part of our practice is acting for people who have been involved in road traffic accidents. These can vary from low impact shunts (with clients suffering a minor whiplash injury) to fatalities and on some occasions, clients who have suffered severe spinal and brain injuries. The consequences of these more serious accidents will not only have a huge impact on the injured person (or their bereaved) but on their families as well.


The Department of Transport has recently disclosed some statistics which make interesting reading.
Their figures claim:-




• 3,201 people were killed on Britain’s roads in 2005
• 271,017 total casualties
• 141 children killed
• 560 deaths involving drink driving
• 569 motorcyclists killed
• 148 cyclists killed
• 8 times more male than female drivers or riders involved in road accidents were reported as exceeding the speed limit



The statistics also confirm that the most common cause of accidents was failing to look properly, a factor in 32% of crashes, followed by failing to judge another vehicle’s speed (18%) and driving carelessly or recklessly (16%). The figures contradicted claims by speed camera supporters that speed is a factor in a third of collisions. Travelling too fast for the conditions was a factor in 12% of all crashes last year but none of these involved drivers breaking the speed limit.



The figures suggest that there were fewer accidents/fatalities in 2005. For example, a total of 141 children were killed on the roads last year – 25 fewer than in 2004. The number of people seriously injured fell by 7% to 28,954.


These figures have however been attacked by some motoring organisations. They say that they are based on police reports rather than being obtained from hospital A & E departments. This means that the number of serious injuries reported by the Department of Transport was artificially low.

In our own experience of acting for road traffic accident victims, lack of concentration on the part of the driver is usually a crucial factor. For example, people are more likely to have an accident if they are using a phone, talking to passengers or even listening to music or eating food. All these activities can be a major distraction.

 

Changes to the NHS

Since 1948, the organisation and structure of the NHS has changed many times with the introduction of Hospital Trusts, Health Authorities and Health Boards. This year there has been a further shake-up with the introduction of Regional Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) which control county based Primary Care Trusts and Hospital Trusts.

The Government hopes that the new shake-up will put patients first in that SHA’s will have sufficient financial clout to get the best possible deal for services. Other changes include the introduction of patient’s choice and the new SHA’s will mirror local authority boundaries so that, for example, health services and social services are able to work better together. The diagram below will hopefully help our readers get a better idea how the NHS is now structured.

 

PRIMARY CARE • Community Hospitals • Doctors • Dentists • Pharmacists • NHS Opticians • NHS Direct • NHS Walk-in Centres	SECONDARY CARE • Acute Hospitals • A & E Departments • Ambulance Services • Operating Theatres • Mental Health Services

Strategic Health Authorities: are responsible for managing and setting the direction of the NHS locally. They support PCTs and other NHS organisations and make sure they are performing well. There are 10 SHAs covering England and they are the key link between the NHS and the Department of Health

Primary Care: the first contact most people have with the NHS, it includes GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians. Primary care is based around treatment for routine illnesses and injuries as well as preventative medicine, such as services to help people stop smoking.

Secondary Care: also known as acute care, can be either elective care or emergency care and usually takes place in the an NHS hospital. Elective care can include anything from hip replacement operations to kidney dialysis. It also includes ambulance services, hospital trusts and mental health trusts.

 

 

 

Government gearing up for coroners reform

The Government plans to reform the coroner system came in the form of a draft bill earlier this year.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), in the foreword to the draft bill, announced the aims of the reforms were three-fold; to provide a better service for bereaved people, to create a good national framework and leadership, and ensuring investigations and inquests are more effective. To further these aims the bill will introduce a post of chief coroner and an advisory coronial council, responsible for developing national standards and guidance. Bereaved people will be given a clear legal standing in the investigation and a draft charter for bereaved people will set out the standards of service which bereaved people can expect from the reformed system.

The DCA used the draft bill to announce a couple of innovatory legislative procedures. Members of the public, with recent experience of Inquests, will be involved in pre-legislative scrutiny for the first time. A 12-member panel will examine the bill clause by clause at Westminster on 18 October. Its input will be facilitated by the Government’s decision to publish a ‘plain English’ version of the bill alongside the usual statutory version.

The bill itself is expected to be introduced in the 2006-2007 session of Parliament which commences with the Queen’s Speech on Wednesday 15 November.

 

Dangerous dogs and the Law

There have been a number of recent high profile cases reported in the press of people (usually young children) who are attacked by family/neighbour’s dogs, sometimes with tragic consequences.

Contrary to public perception, the majority of dogs who attack people are not “German hunting dogs” but family pets like the much loved Labrador. When an attack occurs the police can bring a prosecution against the owner of the dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Magistrates have the power to put dogs down) or they can make a civil claim against the dog owner including a claim under the Animals Act 1971. In certain circumstances, strict liability can be imposed on the dog owner for the actions of their pet.

In our view, after acting for many people who have been victims of dog attacks, the real problem that needs to be addressed by the Government is how few people have pet insurance. This would pay out compensation to victims who have suffered injuries as a consequence of a dog attack. The premium payable is very reasonable and we believe that this insurance (like road traffic insurance) should be compulsory for all dog owners. We all know dogs are unpredictable and even the most docile pet will sometimes turn on a person with devastating consequences.

Case reports

There have been a couple of cases reported recently which have had an impact on those people seeking damages for the psychiatric injury caused by another parties negligence. These include:-

Corr -v- IBC Vehicles Limited (2006)

This was a very sad case involving a man who became depressed after an accident and committed suicide six years later. His wife made a claim against the other party involved in the accident pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act. In the first instance, the Judge who heard the case felt that the suicide was too remote and as this was a deliberate act of self harm it broke the chain of causation. The man’s dependents were therefore not entitled to any damages which arose after suicide. The Court of Appeal disagreed and ruled that depression arising from an accident was foreseeable and one of the consequences of severe depression is the risk that someone may commit suicide. A clear causal thread ran from the accident to the suicide albeit 6 years after the event.

Farmer -v- Outokumpu Stainless Limited (2006)

This is us what us lawyers call a “nervous shock” claim. Here a widow’s husband suffered serious burns in an accident at work. In a telephone call with the medical staff, she was told that her husband was very poorly and she and her family should attend the hospital immediately. She eventually saw her husband one and a half hours after the incident. His body was covered but he had a blackened face, burnt hair and a clearly visible burnt hand. He had an oxygen mask on his face. It was held by the Judge that she was not entitled to any damages for the psychiatric injury caused to her by the appearance of her husband as she had not come upon the immediate aftermath of the accident. The Claimant in this case was a passive and unwilling witness of the injury to her husband and therefore a secondary victim. Her husband was the primary victim. In relation to secondary victims, the law requires a number of control mechanisms to be satisfied in order to limit the potential number of Claimants. The most important ones being as follows:-

a. Their needs to be a marital or parental relationship between the Claimant and the primary victim.

b. That the injury for which damages are claimed arose from a certain and unexpected shock to the nervous system.

c. That the Claimant was either personally present at the scene of the accident or was more or less in the immediate vicinity and witnessed the aftermath shortly afterwards.

d. That the psychiatric injury that arose from witnessing the death or extreme danger to or injury and discomfort suffered by the primary victim.

e. There has to be an element of physical proximity to the event. In this case, the Claimant was unable to satisfy the Judge on condition c. above.

In our opinion, this decision is very harsh and limits further the ability of Claimants who witness either a spouse or a child’s horrific injuries following an accident ability to recover damages in these circumstances. The law in this area is in a state of flux as there have been other cases reported in the past with a far more liberal interpretation of what constitutes the immediate aftermath.

Stop press…….. at the beginning of October 2006 a new law came into force that made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the ground of age. In future, discrimination will be justifiable only if an employer can show sufficiently good reasons. Contrary to the reporting of these regulations in certain newspapers it will affect all the workers not only those approaching retirement age. In our opinion, it will also have an impact on health and safety issues. With more workers now being employed up until 65 (and in certain circumstances beyond this age) employers need to regularly undertake risk assessments to ensure that these employees are not at more risk of physical injuries. For example, a man in his 60s is unable to do the manual handling of say a man in his 30s or 40s. Failure to make sufficient allowances for these older employees may result in a claim against their employer.

Top of Page

This newsletter was produced by S J Edney, solicitors at:
Alexander House, 19 Fleming Way, Swindon, Wiltshire. SN1 2NG -
e-mail office@sjedney.co.uk Telephone 01793 600721