Personal Injury Law Blogs

Food manufacturing company heavily fined after worker suffers injury

A Suffolk food manufacturing firm has been heavily fined after a worker suffered serious injuries at work because of health and safety breaches.

Mr Attila Czege, 34, was working for Indo European Foods Ltd when the accident happened on 20 September 2012.

Mr Czege was working on a production line which was bagging rice when his arm became trapped and entangled in an unguarded conveyor belt. His right arm was pulled into the machine and was pulled through a heavy roller at the end of the conveyor, trapping and injuring his right arm. This resulted in Mr Czege fracturing his right arm in multiple places and having to undergo three surgeries in two weeks in order to repair the damage.

The subsequent Health and Safety Executive investigation found that the conveyor had been in the factory for a significant period of time without being properly maintained in order to prevent injury to workers. An example of this lack of maintenance found was the failure to install guards to prevent access to moving parts in the conveyor belt.

The case came to the Ipswich Magistrates’ Court on 20 August 2013. The court heard evidence from the Health and Safety Executive and from witnesses from the company. The company pleaded guilty at the hearing to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. It was fined £16,000 by the Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay costs of £910.65 as well as a victim surcharge of £1,600.

It is not currently known whether Mr Czege has or will claim personal injury because of his accident.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented: “Companies have an obligation under Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 to ensure that measures are undertaken to prevent access to dangerous parts of any machinery or stock bar or to prevent the movement of any dangerous part of any machinery or rotating stock bar before it becomes dangerous to any person. The Magistrates’ Court clearly felt in this instance that the company hadn’t complied with the substance of the regulations.”

HSE Inspector Saffron Turnell said after the judgment: “This incident could have easily been avoided as action to guard the machine adequately was quick and inexpensive. It is disappointing that Indo European Foods Ltd failed to satisfactorily heed the earlier advice of HSE. Instead, Mr Czege suffered a serious and painful injury which resulted in several months off work.”

Redmans Solicitors offer employment law advice and can help you claim personal injury

Premises Liability: Ohio “Recreational Use” statute

recreational use

Ohio, like all other states, has enacted a “Recreational Use” statute that provides landowners immunity from civil lawsuits if certain conditions are met.  In order to encourage property owners to make their land available to the public for recreational use states decided to shield such landowners from liability against premises liability lawsuits.

Ohio’s legislature first enacted the Ohio Recreational Use statute in 1963.

It defines recreational use as hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, swimming, operating a snowmobile, operating an all-purpose vehicle, operating a four-wheel drive motor vehicle, as well as engaging in “other recreational pursuits.”  If you’re new to dogs and camping, learn from the camping authority at Techie Camper.

Generally, under premises liability law, a landowner has a duty to those who are on his or her property to provide a reasonably safe environment.   If the landowner fails to do so, then he or she would be liable for property damage or personal injury that resulted from such a breach of duty.  Under the Recreational Use statute landowners owe recreational users no duty of care.  This means that a landowners does not have to make sure the property is safe from hidden dangers or warn recreational users of hazards.  Ohio landowners have successfully defended premises liability claims based on recreational user immunity in cases where a motorcyclist was injured and his passenger killed when he hit  a tree that had fallen into a pathway,  Estate of Finley v. Cleveland Metroparks, (2010), 189 Ohio App.3d 139;  where a skater was injured while trying to avoid a vehicle, Gudliauskas v. Lakefront State Park, 2005 WL 2711087; and where a rolling garbage bin damaged a parked vehicle, Raymond v. Rocky Fork State Park, 2003 WL 22765268.

However, there are limitations to recreational use immunity.  A landowner loses protection under the statute if he or she charges the public a fee to use the property for recreational purposes.  A landowner  would also likely not be protected if the landowner’s willful or malicious conduct resulted in injury to a recreational user.  Furthermore, Ohio courts seem to be willing to narrowly interpret the Recreational Use statute.  For example, the Ohio Supreme Court  did not allow a governmental landowner to assert recreational immunity where an activity on the premises was distinct from the recreational premises itself.  In Ryll v.  Columbus Fireworks Display Company and the City of Reynoldsburg, 95 Ohio St.3d 467 (2002), Daniel Ryll was killed on July 4, 1996 when shrapnel hit him during a fireworks display.  The Supreme Court of Ohio held that there was no recreational immunity available for the City of Reynoldsburg because Ryll’s  injury was caused not by the recreational premises, but by an activity on the premises.

A result of recreational use immunity statutes such as Ohio’s is that there are more locations open for recreational activities than there would likely otherwise be.  In the absence of such immunity many landowners would be unwilling to take on the financial risk, putting a greater burden on municipalities to fund recreational locales.  On the other hand when recreational users are injured, they often experience significant financial burdens as a direct result, including medical bills, property loss and lost wages.  While it is admirable for Ohio and other states to encourage public recreational use of private property, is it fair for victims and their families to have no legal recourse?

College Stats: Deaths and Injuries Related to Hazing

Hazing traces its roots back to at least the 1600s, but it is no longer legal in most states. In fact, hazing practices have become so extreme that it is estimated that at least one person dies from being hazed every year. When you combine this with all of the people who have suffered adverse consequences such as alcohol poisoning, it is no wonder that hazing is expressly forbidden by most universities.

However, this does not mean that hazing no longer exists. Instead, many fraternities and other organizations have simply taken steps to hide their hazing rituals. In some instances, they have also altered their rituals in a way that can still lead to deadly results. For example, one pledge at California State University Chicago died from being forced to drink too much water.

What Exactly is Hazing?

Hazing is considered to be a way of increasing the bond between a group of people who are in the same organization. It is most common among fraternities and sororities, but there have been reported instances of hazing in a wide list of different places, including professional businesses and the military. During the hazing process, the new members or pledges of an organization are forced to prove their devotion to the group by undergoing a series of tasks and punishments.

For example, a new pledge might be forced to drink an excessive amount of alcohol or they could even be forced to run across campus without any clothes on. At the end of the hazing ritual, the successful pledge is supposed to be welcomed into the fraternity or organization with open arms, and they will then be given the opportunity to haze new members in the future.

Why is Hazing Illegal?

Unless you are in Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota or Wyoming, it is considered to be a crime to participate in hazing. However, even though there are six states that do not have specific anti-hazing laws, this does not mean that you cannot get into legal trouble in those states if your actions cause another person to become seriously injured or die. Additionally, each university in those states has the right to determine their own code of conduct, and you could be expelled if you haze someone.

Hazing has become illegal in most areas because it can lead to serious consequences. As previously mentioned, a pledge in California died from drinking too much water in 2005. In 2011, a member of the Florida A&M marching band died from a hazing related incident. Sadly, these issues are not isolated, and the list of people who have been seriously injured by hazing rituals is very long. Many of these issues involve alcohol poisoning, and a fraternity at Cornell University was found guilty of manslaughter after a pledge died from drinking too much in 2011.

What Will Happen if I am Convicted of Hazing?

The severity of the incident and the state that you are in will determine the legal consequences of your actions. A SanDiego Judge or Minneapolis criminal defense attorney will attest to the fact that if you are involved in a hazing ritual that leads to someone’s death some states will fine of up to $10,000, and you can be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

Because hazing is such a serious issue, it is always best to avoid participating in this practice. However, if you are involved in a hazing incident that leads to a serious injury or death, it is imperative to contact an attorney immediately.

Writer Nickey Williams lived the sorority life for years and acknowledges that hazing is prominent on college campuses, and reasonably cites the dangers that are in direct relation to it. Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Kevin DeVore is aware fully aware of Minnesota’s’ anti-hazing statute and will readily defend any client accused of such behavior in a delicate yet unyielding manner.

Mirena IUD Caused Injury? You May Be Eligible for Compensation

Untitled

 

Many women today use some form of contraception as a way to plan the size of their families. While most birth control is safe to use, other forms cause women to suffer serious health problems. Bayer Pharmaceutical’s Mirena IUD in particular has proven to be one of the more detrimental forms of birth control on the market.

Many users of this brand of IUD now suffer from a variety of health problems, prompting them to pursue legal action against Bayer Pharmaceuticals. They contend that this company knowingly marketed a product that is dangerous and misled the public about its potential to harm women’s health.

Misleading Information

Many women who bring lawsuits against Bayer argue that the pharmaceutical giant knowingly put a product on the market that could cause women to suffer devastating conditions like pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and infertility. Plaintiffs in these suits contend that the company failed to provide adequate information about the potential for these conditions and in fact understated the side effects this IUD could have on women’s well-being. 

Faulty Design

Plaintiffs also argue that Bayer purposely marketed a product that had plentiful design flaws that could harm a person’s cervix and uterus. Women who have brought lawsuits against the company report that they now suffer from illnesses including weakened cervix, intrauterine infection and endometriosis because of the IUD’s flawed hormonal release features. Despite many women having these devices removed, a significant number of former users now report that they still suffer from permanent gynecological issues because of this product’s flawed design.

Breach of Contract

Women who are suing Bayer in court report as well that the company failed to back up its own warranty for the Mirena IUD. The company failed to refund consumers’ money or replace the IUD with a suitable substitution. Plaintiffs say that the company’s unwillingness to acknowledge their concerns about Mirena or refund their money violates Bayer’s own warranty and its contract with its customers.

If you are a Mirena user and have suffered harmful effects to your health, you may wonder what recourse you have against Bayer and what steps you should take to file a lawsuit. You may pursue legal action against the company by following these tips:

Retain an Attorney

Before you take any action, you should first hire an attorney who specializes in lawsuits and consumer protection law. Without adequate legal counsel, you may not be aware of what information the court needs to decide your case. Hiring an attorney and allowing this professional to guide you in your lawsuit against Bayer can ensure your case’s success.

Get Medical Proof 

As you pursue action in court, you would also do well to secure medical proof that you have suffered physical problems because of Mirena. You should see your primary care physician or gynecologist as soon as possible so that these records are available to your counsel and the court immediately. If you have suffered a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, you should also provide documentation of your surgery or D&C to your attorney. 

While many forms of commercially available birth control are safe and effective, other forms have proven to be dangerous. Bayer’s Mirena IUD is known to cause significant gynecological issues that have prompted women to pursue legal recourse against the company. If you have suffered poor gynecological health because of Mirena, you too could be eligible to take action against Bayer.

 
Valerie Stout Cyrus is a freelance writer who frequently researches medical malpractice issues. She discovered Maryland Injury Lawyers Price Benowitz LLP at http://medicalmalpractice.maryland-injury-lawyer.com enable victims of prescription errors and medical device malfunctions to hold medical practitioners and pharmaceutical companies accountable.
 
Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dno1967b/8726068930/

Essential Pieces of Civil Procedure

The American legal system is divided into two specific and equally important sections: criminal law, and civil law. Under this system, only a criminal proceeding can result in the individual receiving a punishment, in the form of a prison sentence or a monetary fine. Additionally, criminal charges can only be filed by officers of the court, who have been granted prosecutorial powers by a governing body. On the other hand, civil proceedings deal with legal disputes involving two parties viewed as private individuals, and can never result in a jail sentence. Although the regulations allow for civil lawsuits to be filed against any governing body in the United States – and vice-versa allow the state and federal agencies to file civil charges against private individuals – the specific government will not, in the vast majority of cases, be afforded the same privileges it enjoys in criminal trials.

• United States Civil Law: Basic Rules and Concepts

As already emphasized, the most important characteristic of American civil law is its capability to grant financial restitution to the winning party, while lacking the power to impose any type of criminal punishment. All civil matters will involve a dispute between the plaintiff – the individual filing the lawsuit and seeking compensatory damages – and the defendant – the person or party believed to be legally liable for the plaintiff’s loss. Additionally, the burden of proof in civil matters is significantly different from the one accepted in criminal trials, and relies on a concept known as “preponderance of evidence”. Unlike the notion of “reasonable doubt” that places the burden of proof on the prosecution and requires unanimous “guilty” verdicts in criminal cases, juries in civil trials are allowed to select one party’s version of events, even if they have remaining doubts regarding some of the presented evidence and arguments. However, the plaintiff’s case still has to be legally sound, before it may be allowed to proceed to jury trial.

• United States Civil Law: The Complaint

All civil action must begin with a formal complaint, filed by the plaintiff with the appropriate court, which must include several important pieces of information:

1. The complaint is required to name the party believed to be at fault, referred to as the defendant – or the respondent if the case falls under family law.
2. The plaintiff must provide their own version of events, and the legal reasoning that makes the defendant directly responsible.
3. The complaint must specify the damages being sought by the plaintiff as compensation for the defendant’s conduct.

In addition to the complaint, the plaintiff will also have to request a summons notifying the defendant of the legal action filed against them. Usually, only after the other party is formally notified, can the civil action be allowed to proceed.

• United States Civil Law: Pre-trial Motions and Depositions

The pre-trial phase plays a very important part in civil cases, and less than 1% of cases actually proceed to trial. Oftentimes, cases will be settled during the pre-trial stage to limit the costs of continuous legal representation. Additionally, both the plaintiff and the defendant may file various motions for action with the court, with the following being the most common in American civil cases:

1. Motion to Discover – usually filed by the plaintiff with the court, to gather all information related to the case, currently in defendant’s possession.
2. Motion to Dismiss – filed by the defendant, asking the judge for dismissal of the complaint because it lacks legal basis.
3. Motion to Compel – filed by either party in belief the information received during discovery is purposely incomplete
4. Motion in Limine – a request made by either party to specifically include (or exclude) any evidence that normally would be viewed as overly prejudicial.

In addition to the above motions, the discovery stage will also include formal depositions case. During a deposition, the attorneys are allowed to question anyone related to the facts of the case, including the plaintiff and the defendant. Also, all individuals being deposed have to be sworn in first, and there will usually be a court reporter present that records the given statement into evidence.

• United States Civil Law: The Trial

Although most civil cases are resolved during the pre-trial stage, a small number of cases do proceed to trial. In such instances, both parties must present their witness list to the court usually at least one week before the start of the trial, although the specific requirements may differ based on particular jurisdiction. Similarly, all evidence exhibits that will be presented must be properly labeled, known to both parties, and the list must be filed with the court. The plaintiff will always be required to present its case first, before the defendant offers its own counterarguments. Once both sides rest, and give their closing arguments, the case will be forwarded to the fact-finder, which may be a jury panel or the presiding judge. If the fact-finder finds for the plaintiff, the judgment will be accompanied by compensatory damages, as well as possible punitive damages. On the other hand, if the verdict supports the defendant’s position – unless a countersuit is filed – no financial restitution will be ordered.

References:
Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureU.S. Federal Court: Courtroom and Trial Procedures

Byline
Daniel Bernstein is a freelance writer who focuses on a variety of topics such as Banking Law, Contracts, Civil Procedure, Finance, Accounting, Tax Law, Taxation and other subjects; those interested in finance may want to check out the accounting jobs with moneyjobs.com by visiting moneyjobs.com.

Two major companies to pay over £100,000 after major blazes in Leeds

Two major companies were sentenced in late July over a major blaze in Leeds that took place in September 2010.

The two companies, Northern Gas Networks Operations Ltd and Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) plc, were found by the Leeds Crown Court to have neglected basic health and safety procedures when installing gas mains during a construction project in a suburbs of Leeds.

The blaze took place on 3 September 2010 whilst both the companies were working on a construction project at the Ring Road in Beeston. Welding work near a gas main sparked a fire which caused twenty-foot flames to shoot into the sky, with the fire burning for over ten hours until firefighters brought it under control.

A Health and Safety Executive investigation was subsequently commenced into the fire and found numerous health and safety violations which may potentially have caused the blaze. The investigation therefore recommended that a prosecution be initiated into the two companies.

The matter came before the Leeds Crown Court on 31 July 2013. The Crown Court heard that there had been health and safety failings by the two companies, including in the planning, organisation and execution of the work – including the failure to consider and control the risks associated with welding near live gas mains.

Chris Hadrill, an employment law solicitor at Redmans, commented: “Companies have an obligation under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to make sure that they take reasonable practicable steps to ensure that their workplaces do not pose a danger to the health, safety or welfare of their workers or third parties.”

HSE Inspector Ian Redshaw commented after the sentencing: “Someone could have been killed or badly injured in this incident. Thankfully no one was hurt, but this was a severe fire that was a danger to workers and local people. There were numerous failings by both companies in the planning, organisation and execution of the work – most importantly the failure to consider and control the risks associated with welding near live gas mains.”

Redmans Solicitors are solicitors offering employment law advice and settlement agreement advice

Health and Safety Executive cases last week – a round-up

In this post we’ll take a look at some cases that have appeared on the Health and Safety Executive’s website in the last week. These case are useful as they give an indication as to how employers can avoid breaching health and safety laws and ending up in court.

Illegal gas work left Norfolk homes at risk

A self-employed heating installer from King’s Lynn has been fined for illegally carrying out sub-standard gas work at two homes in Norfolk.

Mr Ryan Neale, trading as R. Neale Plumbing and Heating, was fined £2,000 by the King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court for breaching gas safety regulations by failing to install a gas boiler and a gas fire properly in two separate homes.

Fitter fined for illegal and unsafe gas work

A heating installer has been fined for illegal and unsafe gas work in a London home. Abhishev Yadav, aged 28, of Greenwich, installed a boiler at a property on Penywern Road, Earls Court, that was later classed as “at risk” because the flue was not properly sealed or secured. He was fined a total of £7,500 and ordered to pay £2,500 costs after the Westminster Magistrates’ Court found that he had breached gas safety regulations, leading to the endangering of consumers.

Eight metre fall for trainee lands firm in court

A Hertfordshire firm has been prosecuted for safety breaches after a trainee employee suffered multiple fractures in an eight-metre fall from a roof.

The 22 year-old, from High Wycombe, who does not wish to be named, broke two vertebrae, his left ankle and wrist, fractured his pelvis and tore ligaments in the incident in Poets Road, Highbury, North London, on 3 December 2012. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court fined Nature’s Power Limited £30,000 and ordered it to pay £5,840 in costs after it admitted breaching the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

It’s not currently known whether the trainee will make a personal injury claim against the business.

Linton man in court after waste site death

The driver of a loading shovel has been sentenced for safety failings after he reversed his vehicle into a lorry trailer at a Cambridgeshire waste site, crushing and killing its driver.

Mark Nyland, 34, from Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, was hit by the tracked loader as he was closing the doors at the rear of his HGV after emptying it of waste and sweeping out debris in a ‘safe area’ on the site. He suffered severe multiple injuries.

The Cambridge Magistrates’ Court found Kenneth Miller, the driver of the loader, guilty of breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was ordered to pay costs of £600 and was sentenced to a 24-week prison sentence, suspended for two years.

Illegal gas work left Dunstable home at risk for months

A builder has been jailed for 12 months for illegally carrying out sub-standard gas work at a lone pensioner’s home in Bedfordshire.

Luton Crown Court heard today (9 August 2013) that between 21 January and 30 June 2010, Patrick Regan carried out internal building work, including gas work and other building works affecting gas appliances, at a 65 year-old woman’s house on Luton Road, Dunstable despite not being registered with Gas Safe.

Mr Regan was sentenced to 12 months in prison for breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was also ordered to pay £2,500 towards the prosecution’s costs.

Direct 2 Lawyers can put you in touch with employment solicitors and criminal law solicitors

Engineering company heavily fined after breaching health and safety laws

A Scottish company has been heavily fined by the Livingstone Sheriffs Court after it admitted breaching health and safety laws, leading to serious injury to an employee.

Mr Kenneth Hunter, 33, was working for Oil States Kaper Ltd at its site in Bathgate when the accident happened in May 2011.

Mr Hunter was working at the site on 25 May 2011, trying to deal with an annnular. An annular is a type of blow-out prevention device that is used in the oil and gas industry to prevent potential blow-outs during oil well drilling – blow-outs which can potentially endanger oil rig platforms.

The Health and Safety Executive received a report of the accident and conducted an investigation into the matter. This investigation recommended that a prosecution be initiated against Oil States Kaper Ltd.

The case came before the Livingston Sheriffs Court on 26 July 2013. The Livingston Sheriffs Court heard evidence from the HSE that the company had failed to provide a safe system of work or that suitable equipment was used to undertake that work. The investigation also found that the firm had failed to ensure that the workers had adequate supervision at work – failure which, it was alleged led to the injury to Mr Hunter.

The company was charged with breaching s.2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and pleaded guilty to the charge. It was therefore fined £40,000 but – in an unusual step – the court did not order it to pay the costs of the prosecution.

HSE Inspector Kerry Cringan stated after the case: “This was an entirely preventable accident which could have been avoided had simple controls been in place. There was the potential for this failure to result in fatal or serious injuries not only to the person working on the annular, but also to employees in the surrounding area.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer advice from no win no fee employment solicitors and compromise agreement solicitors

Eight-metre fall for trainee leads to heavy fine for company

A Rickmansworth firm has been heavily fined and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution after a trainee suffered serious injuries after an accident at work.

The accident happened on 3 December 2012 when the trainee was working with his employer, Nature’s Power Limited, fitting a flue liner down a chimney as part of an installation project. The trainee was up an access ladder attempting to install the flue liner when the ladder came away from the wall. He wasn’t able to right his position and fell three stories to the ground below, sustaining serious injuries. This included a fractured spine, a broken ankle and wrist and a fractured pelvis.

The Health and Safety Executive was subsequently notified and an investigation was started into the accident. The HSE investigation recommended that a prosecution be initiated into the company and the matter came before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court last week.

The Westminster Magistrates heard that the Health and Safety Executive investigation found that the access ladder was not long enough to a point where he could step on to the roof of the building, leading to the accident and his injuries. The company was criticized for not using a safe working procedure and for failing to take steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the serious injuries to the trainee.

Nature’s Power Ltd, who pleaded guilty to breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 in absentia, was fined a total of £30,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £5,840.

The company’s criminal defence solicitors do not appear to have commented on the case either prior to or after the judgement and it is not currently known whether the injured trainee is going to claim personal injury against the business or has done so already.

Marc Hadrill, a personal injury solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented: “Employers have obligations regarding health and safety at work – generally, they have to simply take such steps as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances to ensure that the health, safety and/or welfare of workers and third parties isn’t endangered by the workplace. The Magistrates’ Court determined in this case that the employer failed to do this.”

HSE Inspector Keith Levart stated after the judgment: “If used correctly, access and roof ladders can provide safe access to chimneys. However, this one could not clear the guttering, which led to this entirely preventable incident and a trainee worker suffering serious injuries. It is only a matter of good fortune that these injuries were not fatal.”

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors and personal injury solicitors based in London

Are false injury claims driving up insurance costs?

Just a few months ago figures released showed that Britain’s roads are as safe as they have been for a long time. Accidents were fewer and the amount of people injured on the roads had dropped significantly.

However, the cost of car insurance for under-25s is eye-watering and the average price for a 17-20 year-old male is £2,960. So why is insurance still so high?

The main reason, according to insurance companies, is a huge increase in litigation brought about by the expansion of the “no win, no fee” culture. This has increased legal bills across the board. On average there are around 200 road accident claims lodged every day and lawyers are only paid if the claim is successful, but their fees are substantial.

So is it that people are more aware of their rights to make a claim or is it that insurance companies are encouraging more people to push their luck and make a claim for an injury that actually might not be that bad?

It would seem a bit of both. Last year saw a 5% rise in the amount of whiplash claims in the UK, possibly claims that would not have been made if TV commercials hadn’t been so keen to get people to make a claim for an accident they have been involved in.

It’s estimated that each claim can increase a premium by around £80 per year, not really enough to justify the cost of some premiums, but it’s thought that the huge fees charged by legal firms and claims solicitors is what’s really behind the prices.

The darker side of a more litigious society can be seen in the so called “cash for crash” culture. This is where people deliberately become involved in accidents so that they can then claim for compensation. Mohammed Patel from Manchester was jailed for four years after being found guilty of deliberately causing accidents. For a fee of £500 per collision he intentionally caused 93 crashes in a three year period, each costing insurers an average of £17,000. He was only caught when insurers became suspicious that so many of these collisions took place at the same roundabout.

Patel was assisted by two brothers, Rezwan and Rehan Javed, who ran a firm called North West Claims Centre. They would create false invoices, which were then passed on to insurance companies. In total it’s thought that they cost the insurance industry around £12 million in total.

Though the people responsible for this more serious case of insurance fraud are now in prison, not all claims are organised by criminal gangs on such a large scale. This was highlighted by a survey on behalf of Moneysupermarket.com, which found that shockingly, one in 20 drivers aged under 35 had deliberately braked “in such a way as to cause the following motorist to collide with them,” so they could then make a claim for compensation.

This article was provided by experienced writer and blogger Matthew Crist in association with TSR Injury Law for car accidents in Minnesota.