Personal Injury Law Blogs

What is Res Ipsa Loquitur?

Res ipsa loquitur, often shortened to just “res ipsa,” is a legal concept that is used in negligence cases to substitute for evidence. Literally translated, it is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.”

Background

Res ipsa is a concept in common law or law based on the idea that judges’ decisions create binding “precedents.” Specifically, it resides in the area of tort law, which deals with wrongs against persons or property over which a plaintiff can sue and recover damages.

Despite being a Latin term, res ipsa was created by a court in England in 1863, and has been in use on both sides of the Atlantic ever since. Res ipsa came about comparatively late – even today some court decisions in the U.S. reference cases from the 14th Century, due to the fact that some see it as an “exception” to established legal principles.

Res Ipsa is Unique

In most tort cases, it is necessary for a plaintiff to prove a defendant was at fault before she or he can be awarded a recovery. The presumption is that just because something bad happened doesn’t mean someone else should be automatically held liable for it if they did not cause it.

However, under res ispa, that presumption is reversed. Fault does not have to be specifically proven, since the fact the event happened in the first place is clear evidence of fault existing somewhere, and all that is left to discover is who was in control of the means by which the damages occurred. As one might figure, res ipsa is only applicable in a limited number of situations that are intrinsically unusual.

A Res Ipsa Hypothetical

For instance, say Person A is driving their car down the street when a piano suddenly falls on top of it, luckily sparing Person A, but totaling their car. It turns out that Person A was driving under Person B’s Piano Emporium at the time; however, no one saw the accident happen or knows why it occurred. Regardless, Person A still sues Person B’s Piano Emporium under res ipsa loquitur. The negligence “speaks for itself”: Pianos are not supposed to simply fall on top of cars, and if one did, then whoever was in control of the piano at the time is liable for the damages to Person A’s car.

Application

Historically, different jurisdictions interpreted the scope of res ipsa in very different ways, or even whether to allow suits to precede on res ipsa claims at all. One of the bigger debates lies in the idea of “exclusive control” of the means of the negligent act. In the hypothetical, the jurisdiction where the piano fell would make a difference as to whether Person A would sue Person B, their employees, the company itself, or all three. In those cases, a judge might take the question of who to sue as a sign that res ipsa is not useable at all, since exclusive control can’t be established.

There is also the question of contributory negligence, especially from the plaintiff. If Person A were illegally driving in the parking lane, for example, some judges would consider that contributory negligence and disallow a res ipsa claim.

Byline

Jonathan Huxley is a freelance writer based in Dallas, Texas who concentrates on legal topics such as Personal Injury, Contracts, Business Law, Patent Law and other topics as well; hammerle.com is an established practitioner in the legal world for those searching for assistance or additional information.

The Most Critical Points of Bicycle Safety

Riding a bicycle is extremely beneficial to both human beings and the environment. It is a great way to get exercise, it is an efficient means of transportation and it is completely sustainable by using no non-renewable resources.

But while riding a bicycle may be convenient and effective, it still requires that the rider adhere to certain safety standards in order to prevent any unnecessary harm or injury. Here are the most important parts of bicycle safety in order to stay on the road and injury free.

Helmet

A bike helmet is the single most important point when discussing bicycle safety. A helmet should be worn by a rider at all times, and should be secured snugly beneath the chin in order to be as effective as possible. While many helmets will be beneficial to safety, such as motorcycle, hockey, or other sports helmets, a regulation bicycle helmet should be worn to provide the safest accessory possible.

Experts claim that while only 18 percent of all bicyclists wear helmets, they are over 80 percent effective in protecting the rider from head or brain injuries. A rider should never leave home without a helmet.

Reflectors

While some riders believe that these are only effective once the sun goes down, reflectors are actually useful during all hours. These shiny devices reflect light back to the source, often alerting cars of oncoming or forward-moving cyclists. For bicyclists riding at night, these great tools make them more visible to other cyclists or automobiles. While they should never replace a light, reflectors are a great way to stay safe when riding in traffic.

Hand Signals

Automobiles are fully equipped with electronic signals that can alert members of traffic of imminent maneuvers – bicyclists aren’t so lucky, though. When turning at an intersection, or even simply off of the road, use your hands to signal your change of direction. A left hand pointed straight out indicates a left turn, and a left hand bent upwards at the elbow indicates a right turn – learning bicycle hand signals can keep you safe on the road as you turn about town.

Lights

Like cars, bicycles should be equipped with lights that can be turned on at all times if necessary. While lights are important during the night, riding during inclement weather can be cause for flipping the switch as well. Riding with a light on the handlebars can be convenient; riding with a headlamp is another hands-free option.

For increased safety, make sure that your bicycle always holds a rear light as well. A rear light can be a great alert to cars that are travelling the same direction as you. When riding at night or during conditions of poor visibility, make sure that your front and rear lights are always present and in good working order to ensure your safety on the road.

Stay Safe!

Riding a bicycle can be a great way to have some fun, get some exercise, and benefit the environment, but it is important to follow certain safety procedures on the road. The next time you head out on two wheels, read over this list to make sure that you stay safe as you pedal away.

Byline

Chris Bentley is a freelance writer who specializes in Personal Injury, Criminal Defense, Constitutional Law, Patent Law, Class Action Lawsuits and other fascinating legal topics.

DUI Breathalyzers- Can They Detect Drugs Also?

Although most people think about alcohol when they hear the phrase “DUI,” this acronym actually stands for driving under the influence of anything that alters your ability to operate a vehicle properly. In other words, you can be arrested for a DUI if you drive after getting drunk or high. However, the breathalyzer tests that are used throughout the U.S. are only able to determine if a driver has alcohol in their system. In order to test for drugs, the police officer has to take a suspect to the hospital or an approved clinic for a blood test.

A New Type of Breathalyzer Test

A Swedish developer has recently unveiled a new breathalyzer test that can detect the presence of 12 controlled substances, including marijuana, heroin, morphine, cocaine and methamphetamine. This revolutionary new device has been tested at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and it successfully detected the presence of drugs on the breath of several patients. If U.S. lawmakers agree to make the usage of these breathalyzers legal in each state, it will have big ramifications for people who indulge in recreational drugs.

Will the New Breathalyzer be Used in America?

It is difficult to say whether or not the U.S. will quickly latch onto the idea of using a breathalyzer test that can determine if a driver is high or drunk. However, the opportunity that this test presents cannot be ignored, and it is likely that these devices will eventually be used across the entire country. After all, this revamped breathalyzer test will make it much easier for a police officer to determine whether or not they should make a DUI arrest. Because DUIs are responsible for approximately 40 percent of all of the annual traffic fatalities, it is in everyone’s best interests for the law enforcement officers to have this tool in their arsenal.

What are the Complications of a Tester Launch?

One of the issues that is certain to complicate the decision of whether or not to legalize the Swedish breathalyzer test is the fact that so many people have been exonerated in the U.S. due to calibration issues with the standard test. After all, if the legal system does not have much faith in the current breathalyzer test, it is certain to cast a wary eye on a device that does not have as much field testing. On the other hand, if Swedish police officers use the new breathalyzer with a high level of success, this might convince U.S. lawmakers to legalize the device for testing purposes.

Regardless of whether an officer uses a standard breathalyzer or the new version, it is important to avoid driving while you are intoxicated. After all, if you are pulled over, you will face a long list of legal and financial issues. It is also important to remember that certain tourist areas, including Orlando, place a big emphasis on arresting drunk drivers. DUI lawyers in Orange County FL see clients who’ve gotten DUI’s on vacation quite often, indicating that everyone who imbibes should always use a designated driver or alternative transportation. However, if you do get arrested for a DUI, it is crucial to call an attorney immediately.

Even if you consume marijuana legally, you are still required to stay away from the driver’s seat while you are under the influence. In other words, if the new breathalyzer is legalized and it indicates you have marijuana in your system, you can still get a DUI. If you are required to take a drug test, the Macujo method is a way to remove traces of cocaine, weed, and alcohol from hair. The process entails a mixture of baking soda and apple cider vinegar. More on that here: https://www.anpud.org/blog/macujo-jerry-g-method/

Author Anthony Joseph likes writing about new technology advancements in the field of law enforcement. DUI lawyers in Orange County FL from the firm of Katz & Phillips have both the knowledge and experience it takes to win DUI cases. The laws in Florida can be strict, but having a DUI attorney can ensure that you’re being protected all the way around.

Three firms heavily fined after flying gas canister kills man

Three large firms have been heavily fined after a man was struck and killed by a pressurised gas canister.

Three South East firms have been ordered to pay almost £700,000 in fines and costs after a plumber was killed and six other people were seriously injured by dozens of flying gas cylinders.

Mr Adam Johnston, 38, was working on a construction project in Mundells, Herfordshire, as a plumber when the accident happened on 5 November 2008. He was walking with a colleague from one site to another when he was struck by an argonite gas cylinder, causing him serious injuries. He later died of these injuries.

A Health and Safety Executive investigation was then started into the matter. This investigation found that 80 cylinders at the site had been stored without their protection caps – which are critical to the safety of the cylinders – and that they had been left without being properly secured at the site. These cylinders were filled with high-pressure argonite and were intended to be used for fire suppression at the new storage facility that was being built. It was determined that Crown House Technologies Ltd was the principal contractor for the construction work on the site and that it had engaged Kidde Fire Protection Services Ltd to supply and install the fire suppression equipment. The work was actually carried out by Kidde Products Ltd.

The Health and Safety Executive investigation determined that one or more of the companies was responsible for the serious health and safety breaches which had led to the death of one worker and serious physical and psychological injuries caused by the malfunctioning of the argonite cylinders on 5 November 2008. The investigation therefore recommended that a criminal prosecution be commenced.

The matter came before the St Albans Crown Court on 5 July 2013. Crown House Technologies Ltd pleaded guilty to a brach of s.2 and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £165,000 as well as being ordered to pay a contribution to the prosecution’s costs of £56,696.62. Kidde Fire Protection Services Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulations 6 and 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were also fined £165,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £59,696.62. Kidde Products Ltd also pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2 and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were also fined £165,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £59,696.62.

No comment could be found from any of the companies’ criminal defence lawyers.

A HSE inspector, Mr Norman Macritchie, commented after the prosecution that: “Mr Johnston had no control over the chain of events which led to his tragic death. He died while going about his business as a result of the shortcomings of others. It is only by chance that this incident did not cause further fatalities.”

Marc Hadrill, a personal injury solicitor at Redmans, commented: “Breaches of health and safety can cause injuries – and potentially even death, as here – to innocent employees and third parties. Employers therefore have an understandable obligation to minimise the risk that their workplaces pose to the safety and welfare of employees and third parties.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer to put you in touch with expert unfair dismissal solicitors and settlement agreement solicitors

Birmingham builders prosecuted by HSE after asbestos failings

Two Birmingham-based builders have been successfully prosecuted after they seriously breached health and safety regulations.

The two self-employed builders, Mr Harnek Ram and Mr Gulzar Singh, were prosecuted by the HSE after they illegally removed and broke up asbestos panels outside a home in Handsworth, exposing the homeowners and themselves to asbestos.

The builders were working on the site in Handsworth last year between 19 and 25 May. The householder, who had received a grant from Birmingham City Council to carry out the work to convert his garage into a bedroom and bathroom for his disabled father, employed Mr Ram and Mr Singh, trading as “G Builders”. Prior to the work being commenced the Council had taken a sample from the panels of the house on which work was to be done in order to test for asbestos but the results of the sample were only received after Mr Ram and Mr Singh had broken up the panels.

A Health and Safety Executive investigation was subsequently undertaken. This investigation found that Mr Singh and Mr Ram lacked the necessary licences to authorise them to remove asbestos boards and they failed to take any of the necessary steps relating to asbestos, such as carrying out or asking to see an asbestos survey of the premises before they commenced work. The investigation recommended that the builders be prosecuted for failing to take steps to safeguard both their and other person’s safety.

The matter came before the Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4 July 2013. The court heard evidence from the HSE that the builders had failed to take adequate steps to prevent both exposure to and the spread of the asbestos fibres which were generated by their breaking up the panels.

The two builders, Mr Harnek Ram and Mr Gulzar Singh, pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Mr Ram was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay a contribution to the prosecution’s costs of £1,200. Mr Singh was also fined £2,000 and ordered to pay the same contribution to the costs of the prosecution.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Failing to take proper health and safety precautions when dealing with any dangerous substance – whether it be asbestos or anything else – could have serious repercussions for both those carrying out the work and people in the immediate vicinity. Failing to take such steps can therefore result – as it did here – in a criminal prosecution.”

HSE inspector Mr Gareth Langston commented after the hearing: “An estimated 70% of properties contain asbestos. It is illegal to undertake any work which will disturb the fabric of the building without carrying out and obtaining the results of an asbestos survey.”

Redmans Solicitors offer compromise agreement advice and employment law advice to employees and employers

An In-Depth Look at Both Sides of Personal Injury Negligence

If someone’s actions have caused you direct physical or mental harm, it is possible that you can file a personal injury negligence lawsuit. However, in order to win the case, you will need to be able to prove that the person in question was actually negligent. For example, if someone gets behind the wheel of their car after having too much to drink and they crash into your vehicle, it will be easy to prove that they were negligent.

But a personal injury case will only let you pursue financial compensation for any injuries that you suffered. In other words, according to the DeVore Law Office, if you are driving down a freeway in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and a drunk driver injures you and totals your car, you will have to take separate legal action if the insurance company does not cover all of your vehicle’s damages.

How is Negligence Determined?

A person can be considered negligent if their specific action or inaction causes another person to suffer bodily injury. However, there are some situations when it is difficult to determine if someone should truly be held negligent. Consider, for example, how often surgeons perform high risk surgeries. Although they might have a patient die on their table as a result of a surgery, they will most likely not be held negligent as long as they followed all of the correct procedures. On the other hand, if a surgeon loses a piece of jewelry inside a patient and this causes serious complications, the patient will most likely be able to win a medical malpractice case against the doctor because of the injury that they incurred.

How can I Avoid Being Negligent?

Because we live in a highly litigious society, it is essential to take steps to protect yourself from dealing with a personal injury lawsuit. For example, if there are any trip hazards on your property, you should get them fixed as soon as possible. In the meantime, you might want to consider spray painting the issue to call attention to it so that people are less likely to trip. Additionally, if you have a pool in your backyard, you need to keep it secured at all times and put a sign up that indicates that people cannot swim without permission. Doing this will help you win a personal injury or wrongful death case if a child enters your property without your permission and drowns in the pool.

Working with an Attorney

Whether you have been accused of negligence or want to file a lawsuit against someone else, you should always work with an attorney who has experience with personal injury cases. After all, these lawyers will have the best chance of successfully representing you, and you do not want to take any chances with a case that could have serious financial ramifications.

Proving negligence is not always easy, but as long as you gather all of the applicable evidence, it is definitely possible to win your case, especially with a skilled personal injury attorney on your side.

Anthony Joseph is a blogger/author who has a strong interest in the area of injury law. Kevine DeVore, of the DeVore Law Office, is based in Minnesota and is known for his aggressive legal tactics and track record of success for both personal injury and negligence defense clients.

Juvenile vs. Adult Crime Rates- A Closer Look

According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), violent juvenile crimes have dropped 55 percent from their peak in the mid ’90s. However, the arrest rate for violent crimes is still hovering around 255 for every 100,000 citizens between the ages of 10 and 17. Meanwhile, the overall national violent crime rate is at 386, and this indicates that people of all ages are involved in these crimes. Fortunately, the nation has seen a big decline in the violent crime rate for both adults and juveniles over the past 20 years.

Do Juvenile Offenders become Adult Criminals?

Several studies have indicated that no level of punishment will prevent all juvenile offenders from becoming career criminals. However, there is evidence to suggest that treating juveniles as adults will actually make them more likely to become a repeat offender. There are several potential reasons for this, including the fact that being housed with older criminals makes it easier to gain access to an advanced level of crime-related knowledge. Additionally, individuals under the age of 18 are more susceptible to peer pressure, and they might end up committing new crimes when they are released in order to gain acceptance from some of the people they met in prison.

Is the Cycle Inevitable?

Treating young offenders accordingly by placing them in a juvenile facility can help turn the child or teenager’s life around. However, it is important for the offender to receive counseling while they are going through a juvenile program. Once they are released, they will need to have a strong support system in place. After all, an offender of any age who is released without the means to make money legally will easily be tempted back into a life of crime.

Why do Juvenile’s Commit Crimes?

According to Yampolsky & Margolis Criminal Lawyers, there are just as many reasons for juvenile crime as there are for adult crime, but the motives are often very different. For example, a 25-year-old offender might steal a car because they are broke and plan to sell it for parts. On the other hand, a 16-year-old offender is more likely to steal a car because they want to take a joy ride or have been goaded into it by their so-called friends. However, if the juvenile offender does not receive the proper assistance when they are released, they can quickly turn into an adult who needs to steal in order to pay for food.

Do Scared Straight Programs Work?

For several years, the legal system placed an emphasis on sentencing juveniles like an adult as part of the concept of scaring them straight. As previously mentioned, this has not provided the anticipated results. In fact, many areas are revising their approach to juvenile offenders in the hope that they can be more easily rehabilitated. However, according to www.devorelawoffice.com, Minnesota is one of many states that require juveniles who have been sentenced as an adult to face the same sentencing terms again if they commit another crime.

If your child or teenager has been accused of committing a crime, it is important to hire criminal lawyers Sydney with experience working with the juvenile legal system. With the right legal approach, the young offender might be able to avoid being sentenced as an adult. These criminal lawyers Melbourne are experts in criminal procedures and can help guide your teen through the criminal court system.

Blogger Anthony Joseph enjoys discussing and writing about statistics of young adults in the legal system. Kevin DeVore, at www.devorelawoffice.com, is a fierce attorney who practices in various areas of law. He’s been continuously recognized as a ‘Super Lawyer’ for nine years running, and is well known in the legal field in Minnesotta.

Leeds firm ordered to pay substantial fine after death of worker

A Leeds-based firm has been ordered by a court to pay a heavy fine and large costs after a worker died because it failed to properly follow health and safety laws.

AETC Ltd, a Leed-based specialist engineering company, was sentenced by the Leeds Crown Court this month after a worker died from serious head injuries.

Mr Graham Britten, 46, worked for the firm, which specialises in manufacturing products for the aerospace and power generation industries. On 4 November 2009 Mr Britten was inspecting a vacuum casting furnace which had jammed at the company’s factory near Leeds. He found that the sliding doors to the furnace had jammed half-way and was carrying out maintenance work on these when the doors suddenly shut, trapping his head.

The Health and Safety Executive was notified of the accident and investigated. The investigation found that the company had not put in place effective policies and procedures relating to isolation procedures for maintenance work on the furnace and had failed to implement health and safety recommendations from its own health and safety manager. Further, the HSE concluded that the firm had failed to properly and adequately train and supervise the staff that were working in the factory. It therefore recommended that a criminal prosecution be initiated against the company.

The matter came before the Leeds Crown Court on 5 July 2013. AETC Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was therefore ordered to pay a fine of £300,000 and to pay the prosecution’s costs of £77,500.

It is not currently known whether Mr Britten’s family are claiming for personal injury against the firm.

It is not clear as to whether the company’s criminal defence solicitors commented on the matter after the ruling.

Marc Hadrill, a personal injury solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case that: “Businesses have a duty to train and supervise their staff adequately so as to ensure that the risk to workers is – so far as is practicable – minimised. If a business fails to do so and this results in injury to its staff then it may face criminal charges.”

HSE inspector Dr Angus Robbins stated after the ruling: “When the valve jammed, air pressure continued to build up in the cylinder that drives the valve such that, when the jam was cleared, the stored energy caused the valve to close rapidly with tragic consequences. Safe isolation procedures with training, supervision and monitoring would have prevented Mr Britten’s needless death.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer employment law advice from specialist employment law solicitors

Bradford Council fined after worker falls 35 feet from cherry-picker

A Council in the north of England has been fined and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs after a worker nearly died in a fall last year.

Bradford Council appeared in front of the Bradford Magistrates’ Court last month after a worker was extremely seriously injured in a fall from a cherry picker because of the Council’s failure to adhere to health and safety laws.

The 23-year-old worker – who remains anonymous for personal reasons – was working in Brierly Hall Woods last year when the accident happened. The worker had been instructed to prune the branches of trees in the woods and he was using a cherry picker for this purpose. He was working at a height of about 35 feet when the cherry picker overturned, sending the worker plummeting to the ground. He sustained serious injuries as a result, including a fractured spine, fractured collar-bone, and fractures to his pelvis and right leg. He also sustained serious internal injuries that required surgery.

It is not currently known whether the man has claimed or will claim personal injury against Bradford Council. He was unable to work for five months as a result of the accident and although he has returned to work he can no longer carry out working on trees at height.

The accident was reported to the Health and Safety Executive and they investigated the matter. The HSE investigation found that Bradford Council had failed to properly follow health and safety procedures and that this could have caused the accident. The investigation therefore recommended that a prosecution be initiated against Bradford Council.

The matter came before the Bradford Magistrates’ Court on 25 June 2013. The court heard evidence that the Council had failed to properly plan and organise the work, resulting in the work being done in dangerous conditions.

Bradford Council admitted to breaching s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £12,000, as well as ordered to pay £9,623 in costs for the prosecution.

Chris Hadrill, an employment law solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented on the case that: “Potentially dangerous work needs to be properly assessed and monitored to ensure that injury doesn’t come to employees. Bradford Council failed to adhere to proper procedure relating to health and safety regulations and were therefore found by the Magistrates Court to have committed a criminal offence.”

A Health and Safety Executive inspector, Mr David Welsh, also commented that: “The use of a vehicle-mounted cherry picker for work at height needs to be properly planned and organised. The Council failed to assess the risks of the tree pruning work and provided unsuitable mats for the stabiliser feet, which led to an unsafe system of work being in operation.”

Bradford Council apparently did not comment after the ruling.

Redmans Solicitors offer compromise agreement advice to employees and employer

Newport Council fined for allowing contractor to carry out work on boiler

A Welsh local authority has been heavily fined by a Magistrates Court after it allowed a contractor to perform work when it had not properly checked his competence to do so.

Newport City Council have got into hot water with the law after it engaged a contractor in 2010 to carry out work on a loft conversion at a property near Newport, Wales. This work was carried out in November 2010. As part of the conversion work the contractor had to move a boiler in the house and replace a flue. However, the work was not done competently and this left the boiler and flue in an “immediately dangerous” condition, with potentially lethal fumes seeping into the house.

The householder subsequently complained that her boiler was not working and that it was leaking. She therefore called an independent engineer to inspect the boiler. This engineer reviewed the situation and informed her that she should not use the boiler or the flue. He also recommended that she contact Gas Safe so that they could commence an investigation. The Gas Safe Investigation found that the work on the boiler had not been carried out competently and the matter was referred on to the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”). The HSE investigation resulted in a recommendation that Newport City Council should be prosecuted for failing to instruct a competent contractor to carry out the work.

The case came before the Cwmbran Magistrates Court on 24 June 2013. The court heard how the HSE investigation had instructed the householder to contract the company that carried out the work without checking the company’s competence to do so or monitoring their work whilst it was carried out. Further, the Council apparently did not follow its own rigid policies and procedures relating to choosing contractors – it did not ask the householder to choose from a list of approved contractors and did not pass the matter through the department that normally undertook such work.

The Council pleaded guilty to a breach of s.3(1) of the Health and Safety At Work etc Act 1974. It was fined £20,000 as a result and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £11,000. The criminal defence solicitors for the Council did not comment after the judgment.

The HSE inspector responsible for the case, Mr Dean Baker, commented after the judgment that: “Newport City Council failed in their obligation to the family to ensure that the contractors they were paying to do the work were able to do it competently and to monitor the work being carried out on their behalf. The shoddy and careless work by the contractors could have cost a family with young children their lives. Anyone carrying out work on or near a flue should get the advice of a Gas Safe Registered engineer before starting work.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case that: “It’s not only the people doing the work who have a duty to ensure that health and safety laws have complied with – the person contracting for the work to be done also has a duty to ensure that a competent person is chosen to undertake the work and that the work is also monitored.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer employment law advice from specialist solicitors to employees and employers