PIBULJ
22 November 2006 - PI Practitioner
ROAD TRAFFIC – DUTY OF CARE WHEN DRIVING TOO CLOSE TO THE CAR IN FRONT
Whittle v. Bennett, CA 1st November 2006
A person driving too close to the vehicle in front owes a duty not just to the vehicle in front, but to all persons who might reasonably be affected by those actions.
The claimant was carrying out a U-turn at a point on the road with limited visibility. The defendant was driving too closely behind another vehicle; both were approaching the claimant. The first vehicle managed to avoid the claimant, but the defendant did not, and they collided. The Court of Appeal endorse the first instance judge’s decision to dismiss the claim, as the defendant would have been unable to stop even if he had not been driving too close to the car in front.
LIMITATION – WHEN A CLAIM IS ‘BROUGHT’
St Helens MBC v. Barnes [2006] EWCA Civ 1372
With respect to s. 11(3) of the Limitation Act 1980, a claim is ‘brought’ when the claimant’s request for issue of a claim form is delivered to the correct court office within the appropriate opening hours. If the claim form is not in fact issued until a later date after the expiry of limitation, it will not give rise to the statutory defence.
DISPUTED CAUSATION IN LOW VELOCITY IMPACT CASES – DEFENDANT’S PROCEDURE
Casey v. Cartwright [2006] EWCA Civ 1280
In a normal whiplash case there should be no need for expert evidence on causation. Only if the Defendant wished to argue that the claim was fraudulent because the impact was too minor to cause any or any greater than trivial injuries would the causation issue arise. The Defendant should notify the other parties within three months of receipt of the letter of claim that he intended to raise the causation issue, should plead the issue in a defence supported by a statement of truth, and should serve within 21 days of service of the defence a witness statement dealing with the defendant’s evidence on causation.
When the above procedures are complied, and the issue is properly raised, the court will normally give permission for the claimant to be examined by a medical expert nominated by the defendant. If the court was then satisfied that the evidence showed a defence case on causation with real prospects of success, then it should give the defendant permission to rely on that medical evidence.
February 2011 Summary
NEWSLETTER
Industry NewsSummary of Recent Cases - Substantive Law
Summary of Recent Cases - Costs
Summary of Recent Cases - Civil Procedure
PI Practitioner
LAW JOURNAL
Editorial: Risk and Social BenefitPersonal Injury Articles
Risk assessments: do they really matter? - Sarah Fraser Butlin, Cloisters
How important are risk assessments really? What evidential value do they have? And what weight should be put on them? Are they the golden bullet for every case? 1.The Court of Appeal have now provided helpful guidance on this point emphasising their importance in Uren v (1) Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and (2) Ministry of Defence [2011] EWCA Civ 66.
I hear you loud and clear: Dewsbury v Love [2010] EWHC 3452 (QB) - William Latimer-Sayer, Cloisters
The case of Dewsbury v Love [2010] EWHC 3452 (QB) has been widely reported in relation to the decision of HHJ O’Brien QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, refusing an adjournment pending the Lord Chancellor’s review of the discount rate. However, the fact that the case was not adjourned meant that the judge went on to assess quantum of damages in a significant brain injury case. The judgment contains a few potentially useful points for practitioners.
Green v Sunset & Vine Productions Limited & Others [2010] EWCA Civ 14414 - David Thomas, 2 Temple Gardens
This article reviews the Court of Appeal’s decision in Green v Sunset & Vine Productions Limited & Others. Two aspects of the case are focussed upon: (1) the decision on causation and (2) the treatment of expert evidence.
The MoJ portal: progress to date - Nigel Teasdale, Kerris Dale, Huw Edwards & Peter Allchorne, FOIL
2010 was a year of radical change for road traffic personal injury practitioners, both lawyers and insurers alike...
Health & Safety Articles
Should we warn against night shifts to prevent breast cancer? - Dr Andrew Auty, Re: Liability
The following extract is taken from the Radar database. It provides some reassurance that the proposed link between shift work and breast cancer is overstated.
Medico-Legal Articles, Edited by Dr Hugh Koch
Abstract Symptoms in Traumatised Children - David Bird & Louise Payne, Hugh Koch Associates
Psychologists working as assessors dealing with victims of trauma can be confronted by a range of symptoms, some of which may be closely associated with the trauma. These would include victims of road traffic accidents who subsequently experience travel anxiety.
Mediation & ADR Articles, Edited by Tim Wallis, Trust Mediation Ltd
Personal Injury: Mediation and ADR in other jurisdictions; what’s going on? A Hong Kong, Brussels, and Dublin Tour - Tim Wallis, Trust Mediation Ltd
Mediation has made little significant impact in the personal injury sphere in England and Wales. In considering whether this state of affairs will continue it is interesting to look at civil procedure and mediation in relation to pi elsewhere in the world. There have been interesting developments in three locations.
Marketing for Solicitors
Brand Longevity or Refreshing Update? - Jenny Cotton, Mortons Marketing
Do legal practices have brands? Does it matter either way in times of rapid change? ICI, Imperial Chemical Industries, BP Beyond Petroleum, Gap, Starbucks – with and without coffee, each brand owner made changes to reflect new times and new strategies. How often has the Shell logo been updated visually? Is there a lesson for your practice? Revolution or Evolution? Which works in your case? Many practices have grown by aggregation and merger. Should all the founding partners be listed? Or those still within the practice? Is it just advertising agencies which list a cast of founders?
Charon QC
Charon QC, February 2011
Dr Erasmus Strangelove reveals… his plan for domination of the legal market.
30 March 2011 - Industry News
Law Society Gazette
Leading QC tells APIL that Jackson review could breach European Law…
Solicitors Journal
Access to Justice Action Group publishes response to Jackson…
Access to Justice Action Group
Court of Appeal upholds CFA costs agreement…
Claims Standards Council
Legal Executive numbers set to swell…
Law Society Gazette
Four arrested for insurance fraud…
Insurance Fraud Bureau
Man who died in jousting re-enactment was wearing unsuitable helmet…
BBC
30 September 2009 Summary
NEWSLETTER
Industry NewsSummary of Recent Cases - Substantive Law
Summary of Recent Cases - Costs
Summary of Recent Cases - Civil Procedure
LAW JOURNAL
EditorialPersonal Injury Articles
Interim Payments Post Eeles: A Way Forward? - William Latimer-Sayer, Cloisters
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 204 has made it much for difficult for claimant representatives to advise upon the prospects of recovering significant interim payments in catastrophic injury cases.
Lucky to Have a Job? Stress at Work Update - Heather Platt, Pump Court Chambers
The difficult economic climate and increasing levels of unemployment during the recession seems to be coinciding with a marked escalation in work-related stress. Employers need to be alert to the risk to their employees’ mental health, particularly during redundancy procedures and at times of uncertainty and insecurity: which are known to be more dangerous to workers’ mental health than actual job losses.
Withdrawing Admissions - Professor Mark Hill QC, Pump Court Chambers
‘An Englishman’s word is his bond’: still more so when he or she is a solicitor and an officer of the court. So surely when solicitors make admissions they should be held to them? As ever, with the pragmatism of the Civil Procedure Rules, the answer is ‘it depends’.
Claims Against Foreign Insurers: Yet More Issues - Katherine Deal, 3 Hare Court
It is by now well known that, in December 2007, the European Court of Justice sought to bring clarity to an issue which had for years caused problems for County Court judges up and down the country: could a foreign insurer be sued for damages directly in an English court by an English claimant injured by a foreign driver overseas...
PI Travel Law, Edited by Katherine Deal, 3 Hare Court
Excursions: Who to Sue and Where? - Tom Poole, 3 Hare Court
Accidents, illness and injury often occur when on holiday and frequently when on an excursion on holiday. The question then often arises whether a claim can be brought against the tour operator in this country under Regulation 15(1) of the Package Travel Regulations [Etc] 1992, as opposed to having to pursue the local provider of the excursion, which would probably be in its home court and can often be difficult and costly. This article aims to give some practical pointers on how to answer the question: when is a tour operator liable for injury caused on an excursion?
Medico-Legal Articles, Edited by Dr Hugh Koch
Stigma and the Military: Evaluation of a PTSD Psychoeducational Program (Gould, Greenberg and Hetherton, 2007) - Dr Jacquie Hetherton, Dr Hugh Koch & Dr Kevin Yates
Military personnel are at significant risk of developing psychopathology: the number of Falklands veterans who committed suicide was greater than those who were killed in the war itself.
Marketing for Solicitors
Marketing Your Practice Part 9: Do We Have a Crisis? Is Swine Flu a Crisis? - Jenny Cotton, Mortons Marketing
Recent articles have shown how to promote practice strengths. What of potential weaknesses? Is Swine flu a crisis for your practice now? Will it become one? What can we do now to reduce risk in the future? Swine flu is topical and should be covered by any practice policy on crisis management. If your practice systems are flexible and a bit informal, now may be the time to act.
Charon QC
Charon QC, September 2009
Comment du Jour: A tragic suicide….
30 March 2011 - PI Practitioner
Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
The Claimant’s leg was injured as the result of tortious action of one defendant which caused him a loss of earnings. Subsequently, he was shot in the same leg and the leg had to be amputated in consequence.
The House of Lords held that the first tortfeasor remained responsible of the loss of earnings he caused, even after the amputation. The second tortfeasor was only responsible for the additional damage caused.
Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33The Claimant’s car was damaged in an accident, for which the Claimant obtained judgment, including a sum to pay for a respray of part of the vehicle. Before that repair had in fact been carried out, the Claimant’s car was involved in a further accident with a new defendant. The damage done in the second accident required the same repair as the damage done in the first: a respraying of that part of the vehicle.
The Court of Appeal held that the second defendant had caused no damage or loss additional to that already caused by the first defendant, and thus the Claimant could recover nothing from the second defendant.
Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794The Claimant suffered back injury at work resulting in a loss of earnings. Subsequently and separately he developed a back condition which would have lead to the same loss in any event.
The House of Lords held that the subsequent non-tortious occurrence of the Claimant’s back condition meant that the employer was only liable for the Claimant’s loss until the onset of the back condition.
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613The Claimant was exposed to harmful silica dust during the course of his employment with the Defendant. A proportion of the exposure was due to the negligence of the Defendant, and a proportion of the exposure was not due to negligence. The latter was the greater source of dust inhalation.
The House of Lords held that the Claimant nevertheless had a cause of action against the Defendant if its negligence had ‘materially contributed’ to the injury, even if the classic ‘but for’ test would not be satisfied.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32The Claimant contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. The Claimant had negligently been exposed to asbestos dust by more than one employer. The effect of exposure to the dust is not cumulative, and one exposure at any point can cause the disease. The Claimant could not prove which defendant had been responsible for exposing him to the ‘guilty’ dust.
Distinguishing the earlier case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 (where there had been multiple different potential causes of a disease and the House of Lords held that the claimant was required to show on the balance of probabilities which had caused the disease), the House of Lords held that the Claimant had a cause of action against each defendant where the defendant in question had materially contributed to the chance that the Claimant would suffer from mesothelioma.
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
