Personal Injury Law Blogs

Tesla Sparks Serious Product Liability Issues

Tesla Motors has made quite a spark in the news recently. With two electric cars catching fire in the U.S. since October, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began a probe for more information.

The NHTSA requested information about design modifications and engineering drawings for the Model S electric sedan. Tesla has until Jan. 14 to provide this information for the investigation to continue.

Regulators have asked Tesla to detail the consequences of battery pack damage, which has causes the fires, and how the company addressed such problems in their designs of the Model S.

After an influx of media coverage regarding the fires, Tesla shares dropped by 25 percent since Oct. 1, but have roared back 16.5 percent.

Tesla is a perfect example of product liability cases and how consumers can be protected against the failures of major companies. In the case of vehicles, drivers can sue companies for major issues, especially issues that are due to flawed design or faulty parts.

Some personal injury lawyers specialize in product liability law and help consumers claim compensation when they’ve been injured or their property has been damaged. Every year, major vehicle manufacturers issue recalls, such as Toyota and Honda, for faulty parts that can cause serious issues for drivers.

While Tesla vehicles aren’t in a wide market, other vehicles are recalled by the masses and those vehicles could cause harm to the average driver. In such a case, a personal injury lawyer who practices product liability law should be contacted. Statutes limit the amount of time to claim, so drivers do not have an infinite amount of time to claim for compensation.

Speeding Fine Penalty Fees Set to Rise

Under new proposals from Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, speeding fines could rise from £60 to as much as £100. This 66% increase has been suggested as a solution to the £50 million funding gap for crime victims. Approximately £20 from each speeding fine will go towards helping the victims of motor accidents. This is bad news for motorists that are caught driving above the speed limit. Sixty quid is bad enough, but £100? That’s a lot of money.

Further Changes

Even drivers that are caught tailgating, braking suddenly, or cutting-up other motorists, could find themselves subject to fines. Anything that is considered ‘careless driving’ could become an immediately finable offence, to save the police force and the government on paperwork, since police officers have the authority for this, and that’s why many people want to become a police officer to keep the order in the streets, and they can by performing a police testing wa which is the first step for this.

Drivers without insurance could face a rise in the £200 fine to £300. It’s thought that the government can convey the seriousness of the crime through increasing the fine sums.

According to a speeding ticket attorney it’s not just speeding fines that are changing. Any driving offence that carries a £60 penalty (for example, not wearing a seatbelt and using a mobile while driving) could increase to anywhere between £80 and £100.

The Victims

The victim’s surcharge raises £10 million a year for the Government, but considering that it demands more than £66 million in payouts a year, it barely makes a dent. The new move to increase speeding fines aims to cover some of this shortfall.

Another proposal, currently being considered, is that all sentenced criminals will face a surcharge levy, regardless of their crime. The amount would obviously depend on the severity of the offence and would begin at £20, but could possibly reach £120 for more serious crimes.

The £120 levy could be enforced if anyone was sent to jail for two years or more. Those who were sent to prison for less than this amount of time, would have to pay a £80 charge.

Any Further Changes?

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) is also under threat – this is a taxpayer-funded benefit that allows criminals to claim compensation for becoming a victim themselves. For example, many prisoners are severely injured in prison.

In 2012, more than 3,000 prisoners claimed CICS compensation. This accounted for £75 million in payouts over the last decade. Within this timeframe, more than 20,000 prisoners have benefited.

However, Kenneth Clarke is adamant that those who suffer mild injuries in prison should not be entitled to lump sum compensatory payouts. Instead, politicians will target those who have suffered greater injuries (which is code for ‘we don’t want to pay for this anymore; we’ll take away as many benefits as we possibly can’).

And the money-leeching doesn’t stop there. Yet more proposals call for further adjustments in the law. At the moment, the Government deducts £5 a week from the benefits of anyone who commits an offence. However, this amount may rise to £25, to make offenders pay more for their crimes – nevertheless, a UK road offence firm, drivingoffence.com on their speeding page have specific guidelines on the matter.

The Number of Claims Companies Reduces

As the majority of people operating within personal injury claims are aware, one of the biggest problems facing the industry right now is that of fraudulent claims and the unscrupulous companies who make them on behalf or both suspecting and unsuspecting clients.

Of course, for every company and person who makes a fraudulent or enlarged claim, there are just as many who are operating within the law. However, with these over-inflated claims pushing up insurance prices, giving personal injury solicitors Kent a bad name and undermining the industry as a whole, it seems only right that something be done to tackle the problem, sooner rather than later.

The Government Solution

To that end, the Government, via the Ministry of Justice, have announced a series of several measures which they hope will discourage poor quality claims, as well as the people who make them.

Key among these are cutting legal aid, changing the way that evidence is given and presented in cases such as whiplash and limiting the amount that can be claimed for certain injuries and accidents.

However, the Government has also announced a consultation to introduce further measures, including proposed fines for unscrupulous companies,. It is their hope that these measures will add further regulation to the industry and improve the reputation of Kent lawyers who are merely trying to get the best possible solution for their clients

The moves and the consultation are all part of the Ministry of Justices’ Conduct Rules which were introduced in July and apply to all solicitors and law firms in Kent. However, whilst it has been stressed that the reason for the Conduct Rules is to tighten up an industry with little regulation those legitimate Kent Solicitors who take their reputation and their clients’ wishes seriously should have little to worry about and few additional responsibilities.

At the same time as the introduction, an interesting trend has also emerged – the number of claims management companies closing their business.

A loss of 38%

A report compiled by the Ministry of Justice has found that despite the personal injury sector remaining the largest with 1485 firms regulated and 2350 in total, there has been a significant drop in the number of companies practising.

In fact, the latest personal injury news shows that within the last year, 38% of UK claims management companies have ceased trading. In addition, the report also showed that the total revenue of the PI sector has also dropped significantly, by 22% in the same period.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the closures and the additional measures coinciding are purely coincidental, saying “Most of the CMCs that have exited the market were small businesses, which had either ceased trading altogether or were focusing on the credit hire/bent metal aspects of accident management.”

The report went on to say “Six months into the ban, we have observed a shift in business practices. CMCs have amended their models to make them compliant with the ban, using for example, marketing schemes and service agreements.”

 

Car Accident Assistance in Unconventional Places

In a report issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were more than 5.3 million police-reported automobile accidents in 2011. This number increased to just over 5.6 million in 2012. This doesn’t include the number of collisions in which drivers do not involve the police. Crashes resulting in injuries rose from 1.53 million to 1.63 million, and fatalities rose form more 29,867 to 30,800.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners surveyed a number of men and women to see how many know exactly what to do if there is an accident. Surprisingly, many were uncertain. Even if you do know, shock often sets in following an accident and that makes it hard to do the right thing. With both the rate of motor vehicle accidents and accidents involving injuries or fatalities on the rise, it’s especially important to know what to do if you are in an accident and to make sure you don’t miss anything during this stressful situation. Today, there are auto accident apps that help you out.

Information Needed After a Car Accident

Following an accident, providing you are not injured, you need to move your vehicle to avoid blocking traffic. Before doing so, take photos of the cars in the post-crash positions. Take the pictures from all angles. If you cannot move the cars, police will take photos, though you still may want your own copies for your insurance company.

Take the other driver’s name and insurance information. You also need the make, model, and license plate for the other driver’s vehicle. Giving out your home address or driver’s license number puts you at risk for fraud.

If there are witnesses, get their names and phone numbers. If an officer shows up, take that officer’s name, contact information, and badge number. You also want to get a copy of the accident report either at the scene or from the officer at the police station. Finally, note the weather conditions, road conditions, and circumstances leading up to the accident.

As you can see, that’s a lot of information to remember to collect. This is why an auto accident app is essential.

Car Accident Report

Car Accident Report is available for iPhone users. Once you download the free app, you can store personal information so that if there is a crash and you are unable to communicate, officers can pull up your data and have the information they need to contact your loved ones and primary care doctor. If you’re not injured, the app walks you through a checklist of information you need to gather. You can access GPS to pinpoint the exact accident location. It also works with your iPhone camera to get photos of the accident scene to add to the accident report.

Help, I Crashed My Car

Help, I Crashed My Car is a free auto accident app for the Android user. In addition to the assistance in gathering information and taking photos, it also directs you to the nearest car rental companies and auto mechanics.

WreckCheck

Many state department of insurance boards suggest drivers download WreckCheck, an auto accident app that the National Association of insurance Commissioners created. WreckCheck guides you into collecting the information you need, gives tips on remaining calm following the accident, and even creates an accident report that you can email to your insurance company and yourself.

Prepare yourself for an unexpected auto accident in advance, make sure to always have a contact of a car accident attorney. Having a vehicle accident app installed on your smartphone ensures you have the guidance you need to get through this stressful time. Best of all, these apps do not cost you anything, so there is nothing keeping you from installing a car crash app today.

Byline: John Burke writes on everything technology-related, including smartphone law apps

Roofer prosecuted after grandmother and grandson burnt with bitumen

A High Wycombe-based builder has been fined by the Redhill Magistrates’ Court after it was found that health and safety breaches by him had caused or contributed to serious injury to a grandmother and her 21-month-old grandson.

Self-employed roofer Mr John Terrell, 50, had been contracted to felt a flat roof and in order to complete the job it was necessary to use bitumen. The bitumen was melted at ground level and then carried up a ladder in a bucket to the roof where it was being applied. Several trips up the ladder had been made without incident but on one of the trips up the ladder slipped just as the unidentified grandmother approached the roofers with her grandson to ask whether they wanted a cup of tea. The bucket of bitumen that was being carried up the ladder fell directly on to the grandmother and grandson and they sustained burn injuries to their head, face and lower body. They were hospitalized for a number of weeks by the accident.

The Health and Safety Executive were informed of the accident and subsequently investigated. This investigation found that there had been health and safety breaches by Mr Terrell, including a failure to put in place a safe system of work and a failure to supply suitable equipment to enable the work to be carried out safely (the ladder was in poor condition with missing or badly worn rubber feet. A prosecution of Mr Terrell was therefore recommended.

The case came to the Redhill Magistrates’ Court on 25 November 2013. Mr Terrell pleaded guilty to a breach of s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,100, as well as being ordered to pay £1,335 in costs.

HSE Inspector Amanda Huff stated after the judgment: “Extreme caution must be taken at all times when working with bitumen because it can be incredibly harmful – as the grandmother and her young grandson can sadly testify. John Terrell didn’t take extreme care. He was using a ladder with clearly visible defects that wasn’t properly secured, and they sustained horrific burns as a result.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented on the case: “Businesses have obligations under UK health and safety legislation to ensure that they take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that neither workers nor third parties are injured because of workplace practices. The HSE clearly felt in this instance that Mr Terrell hadn’t taken reasonably practicable steps.”

Redmans Solicitors are unfair dismissal solicitors offering settlement agreement advice to employees and employers

Chemicals company heavily fined over acid burns at work

An international chemical company has been heavily fined after a pipe split at a plant resulted in acid burns to the faces of three workers.

Polimeri Europa UK Limited was sentenced on 29 November 2013 after being prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive for failing to ensure that it had taken reasonably practicable steps to protect its employees from coming to harm as a result of workplace practices. The firm was, as a result, ordered to pay almost £140,000 in costs and fines by the Southampton Crown Court.

The incident occurred on 13 December 2011 at Polimeri Europa UK Ltd’s plant in Hythe, Southampton. On the day in question the three workers – who were contractors working at the site – were engaged in the course of their employment when a pipe carrying sulphuric acid split, catapulting the corrosive liquid almost sixty feet into the air. This acid then landed on the contractors, causing burns to their face. However, quick action on the part of workers and other staff members – including showering on site after the accident and quick treatment from a first aid kit – ensured that the injuries to the workers were more limited than they may necessarily have been otherwise.

The Health and Safety Executive were notified of the accident and subsequently investigated. This investigation found that the pipework carrying the sulphuric acid had badly corroded and that this had caused the split in the pipeline. The HSE further identified that there had been health and safety breaches by the company, including a failure to properly investigate the corroded pipework over the preceding years because of concerns by the company that other pipework carrying other potentially hazardous liquids should be investigated first. The HSE therefore recommended that the company be prosecuted for the health and safety failings.

The case came before the Southampton Crown Court on 29 November 2013. Polimeri Europa UK Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2 and s.3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £120,000, as well as being ordered to pay the prosecution’s full costs at £18,023.

HSE Inspector Sally Morgan stated after the sentencing: “These workers received acid burns in an incident that could have been prevented. Polimeri Europa UK Ltd should have ensured that their pipework, much of it over 50 years old, was subject to a thorough and timely inspection regime… High hazard sites must ensure that there are rigorous monitoring procedures in place for such systems.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented on the case: “Organisations in the United Kingdom have obligations to comply with health and safety legislation – if they fail to do so they may not only be subject to criminal prosecution and potentially heavy fines but they may also find that their employees are injured by their failings.”

Redmans Solicitors offer employment law advice and are unfair dismissal solicitors

Claims Portal data indicates teething problems

The Claims Portal was introduced to England and Wales in April 2010 by the Ministry of Justice in order to provide support during the claims process of claims valued at lower than £10,000. The use of electronic communications tool was further expanded on 31 July 2013 to include Employer’s Liability (EL) and Public Liability (PL) claims valued up to £25,000 as part of Lord Jackson’s reforms of the personal injury laws.  Claims which are contested or those valued at over £25,000 are not handled via the Claims Portal, but the normal process. Within the portal legal costs are capped at £900 for claims between £1,000 and £10,000 and at £1,600 for those between £10,000 and £25,000.

The portal is a not-for-profit organisation is headed by 8 non-executive directors representing solicitors and the insurance industry. It is intended as a secure repository for information relating to claims where solicitors, insurers and compensators contribute and keep track of a claims process remotely. The resource’s extension was meant to streamline the process, enabling ease of communication, greater accuracy in claims and reducing the processes costs. The extension of the portals use reduced the time insurers have to reply to a claim from 90 to 30 days for Employer’s Liability claims and 40 days for Public Liability claims.

On 17 October the Claims Portal released its quarterly update to its Executive Dashboard Management Information; it’s first since the extension of the portals use. The data suggests that there may be some teething problems with the new system.

The data shows that in anticipation of Lord Jackson’s reforms to the system coming into effect there was a 2% increase in the numbers claims year on year for July, but a 15% decrease year on year for August. This initial data suggests that Jackson’s reforms are going some way to ‘combatting compensation culture’ by reducing the number of claims, though it is still early days for the new process.

During August, the first month of the new process there were 718 Claim Notification Forms (CNF’s) entered into the Claims Portal, which included industrial disease, industrial accident and public liability claims. Of these only 425 were still on the system at the end of the month. With roughly 40% of the claims being withdrawn there seems to have been some confusion regarding the new process.

Of the 143 EL claims involving disease 105 remained in the system at the end of August one claim was dropped due to an incomplete CNF, one was too complex for the system, 2 claims were withdrawn, 4 were duplicate claims, 2 required further information and 27 for other reasons.

There were 200 EL claims involving accidents in August; one due to an incomplete CNF, one was too complex for the process, 9 claims were withdrawn, one required interim payment for a child, one required further investigation and 26 were duplicate claims meaning 39% of the claims entered on the system broke down in some way.

There was a similar claims failure rate for public liability accident claims in August, with 375 being entered and 124 leaving the process; 33% of those entered. Of these one was due to an incomplete CNF, 3 were below the £1,000 base limit, one was too complex for the process, 9 claims were withdrawn, one had an offer withdrawn, one required further investigation, 4 failed to acknowledge the CNF on time, 26 due to duplicate claims and 78 existed to other reasons.

By far the largest number of claims left the process due to other reasons, which is not very enlightening. It would be helpful if the reasons were given in more detail so that the issues with the process could be ironed out. The second most popular reason for a claim existing the process was due to a duplication of a claim. This is an issue that the Claims Portal itself should really have addressed as it should have made the process more transparent. As those personal injury solicitors and insurers involved in the process become more familiar with it this proportion should decline.  [Note that finding a personal injury lawyer in the US is a separate matter to finding one in the UK or indeed in parts of the UK], There also are claims which were not eligible to be entered into the process and there are some cases which were entered from before the 31 July start date in error.

Administrative errors are bound to happen when a new process is being adopted, but the high proportion of claims leaving the process suggest that those involved could use some more familiarizing with the system and process. We await the release of the next quarterly update to see whether involved parties have got up to speed.

About the author

Paul Rooney are a leading personal injury solicitors firm based in North West England who are up to speed with the new Claims Portal process and industry developments, so as to provide the best service and outcomes for their clients.

Abuse in Public Services

Shocking news stories give the impression that abuse from public care workers is frighteningly commonplace. However, a report by the Winnipeg government says that the majority of abuse involving older adult victims comes from family members. Similarly, the United States based non-profit organization Do Something says that more than two thirds of child abuse occurs within the family. Despite reforms over the years though, abuse by care workers in a public role is still a very serious problem, and everyone should be aware of how to spot it.

Children

A report by the United Kingdom based charity NSPCC found that children were very unlikely to be abused by child minders, and by comparison, were far more likely to be abused by teachers (although family members and family friends and associates were far more likely still). Additionally, Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft asserts that children are “100 times” more at risk of abuse by teachers than priests.

Relative to the above categories, child abuse from health care professionals is minimal.

Elders and Vulnerable Adults

Health care workers abuse the elderly more often than they target children, although older people tend to have more contact with these workers than other demographics. A UK government (National Health Service) report suggested that in abuse of ‘vulnerable adults,’ 29 percent of those abused were victims of the health care staff. A higher number were abused in care homes than in hospitals.

For both older adults and children, neglect is by far the most common type of abuse, accounting for between two thirds and three quarters of cases. Physical abuse is next for both groups. It is closely matched by sexual abuse in children; sexual abuse of the elderly is rare. When it comes to abuse by public workers though, neglect is more likely to be a problem for elders than children.

Spotting abuse

Signs of abuse are similar in children and vulnerable adults. Along with physical signs — particularly regularly occurring injuries — victims will become withdrawn, quieter, and less likely to enjoy things as they did before. They may become angry or emotional and require increased or decreased attention from others. Their diet and appetite may change, and in the case of sexual abuse, they could become less sexually comfortable, or more overtly sexual and sexually aggressive. Nightmares, new physical habits, and strange reactions to the mention or physical presence of a certain person — possibly the abuser — are warning signs of abuse. A reduction in personal hygiene, especially for elders, is another indication.

Taking action

A major reason why abuse goes unreported is fear of not being believed, or of the potential consequences an abuser may inflict. This is particularly true in cases involving public workers, because they will be seen as being in a position of authority and therefore in a better position to be believed than a vulnerable person. Looking out for signs of abuse is an essential step for monitoring loved ones, but greater transparency about abuse is also needed in order to convince people that the moral majority is on the side of victims. This can be done by making life less hazardous for whistle-blowers who report abuse, as victims will see the precedent.

 

This article was provided by Sandy Wallace, aspiring lawyer with a concern for civil rights and health. One rising, overlooked problem plaguing our society is Elder Abuse. It you witness such acts or have become victim of it yourself, Sandy recommends seeking immediate legal help.

Injury Ending Your Career? How to Get Help

(U.S. Law and Generally) Injuries that occur outside of the workplace can be very problematic for the injury victim. Employers are not responsible to maintain an employee injured outside the workplace and unemployment is contingent on the claimant’s ability to work. Even an employee who is medically cleared for light duty by a doctor may have a problem returning to work when the employer is not willing to provide light-duty job responsibilities.
Actually, employers can leave themselves vulnerable by allowing an injured employee to return to work on light duty because injured employees can easily exacerbate the injury, even in a light-duty situation. However, there are a few measures that can be utilized by the injured party.

Family Leave Act

Depending on the length of employment with the employer, an injured employee can still file for a leave if they are incapacitated to work. However, this may be an unpaid leave. Employee insurance packages may allow for short-term disability payments for a six-month period.
If the injured employee cannot return to work after six months, then long-term disability can begin if the injured party has filed for disability with the Social Security Administration. In many cases, this is the only option, but winning a disability claim can be a long and exhausting process. If the long-term prognosis is permanent disability, then it is important to file with a personal injury attorney as soon as possible to get the claim started.
Filing for Disability
Anyone can file for disability after being injured, especially if the injury will last for a significant period of time. Asset levels can be problematic if the injured party is apply for Supplemental Security Income because of the asset threshold for qualification.
Social Security claims can also be problematic because the injured party must be unable to work for six months and all claimants are routinely denied on the initial claim; contact a social security law services firm for guidance. Winning a long-term disability claim through the Social Security Administration always requires an attorney who is experienced with rules of Social Security Disability awards.

Education and Alternate Employment

Injured individuals who are capable of performing sedentary job duties can always apply for alternate career positions if a potential employer is willing to accept the applicant. EEOC laws apply to injured individuals after they are ruled disabled, so this can easily be a limited option. It may be better to look at other alternatives, such as returning to school through the various financial aid availabilities.
Attending school is not necessarily considered being able to work and may be available through the state vocational rehabilitation department. State vocational rehabilitation normally covers book and tuition and establishes with the state that the individual is injured.

Anyone who is in this employment position should always consult with an attorney who may know of other options, but a social security attorney will usually advise to file for Social Security Disability. The application also includes SSI eligibility consideration and Medicaid. The new healthcare law has made it much easier for individuals to qualify for Medicaid healthcare through a needs-based determination. Additionally, if an employee has been terminated unduly there may be a legal avenue to either reinstate the injured employee or file for other employment-related benefits like unemployment.

If the immediate physician agrees to a release to return to work, it is a high possibility that unemployment benefits may be available until the disability claim is filed. Always remember that a disability claim is a claim that the individual cannot work, and an unemployment claim is a claim that an individual can work. According to Steinger, Iscoe, and Greene, an Orlando, FL personal injury attorney team, “You have medical bills, pain, and possibly loss of work. You deserve to know your rights, your choices, and your options.”

Recycling company heavily fined after worker killed in accident at work

A Redcar-based firm has been heavily fined by the Teeside Crown Court after a worker was killed in an accident at work in 2008.

Mr Raymond Burns, 43, was working for UK Wood Recycling Limited when the accident occurred on 19 December 2008. On the day in question Mr Burns was walking between a wood pile and a skip in the yard of the firm’s site in Wilton when a load shovel pulled out from behind one of the wood piles and hit him. He was struck and run over by the vehicle and was fatally injured. He died of his injuries at the site.

The Health and Safety Executive were subsequently notified of the accident and investigated the matter. This investigation found that there were the following health and safety breaches by the company:

  • A failure to put in place segregation measures to separate vehicles and pedestrians, resulting in an unsafe system of work being implemented
  • A failure to conduct an adequate risk assessment

Prosecution of the company was therefore recommended by the HSE.

The case came before the Teesside Crown Court on 12 November 2013. UK Wood Recycling Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and was consequently fined £200,000, as well as being ordered to pay £34,000 towards the costs of bringing the prosecution.

HSE Inspector Bruno Porter stated after the judgment: “This was an entirely preventable death caused by the company failing to have a system to allow vehicles and pedestrians to move safely around each other. Ideally, this segregation is achieved by the vehicles and pedestrians having separate traffic routes.  If they share a route or area then physical barriers should be used to keep them apart, or other means of preventing moving vehicles and people being in the same place at the same time.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment law solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Businesses have a duty to comply with health and safety regulations to ensure that all reasonable measures to protect employees from injury have been taken. The Health and Safety Executive clearly felt in this instance that this particular hadn’t company hadn’t taken sufficient steps to prevent injury to its employees.”

Redmans are unfair dismissal solicitors and offer employment law advice to employees and employers

Please note that Redmans Solicitors were not involved in any capacity in the above matter