Dallas McMillan's Glasgow Lawyers' Blog
Contact us today for legal advice from our expert lawyers.
During the first six months of 2013 the total compensation awarded to personal injury claimants in Ireland increased by 8.3% to €118million, according to a mid-year analysis undertaken by the Injuries Board....
A package of proposals to change the system of expenses and funding of civil litigation has been unveiled following an independent review by the former Sheriff Principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, Sheriff Principal James Taylor....
The Supreme Court has held that a Catholic teaching institute is vicariously liable for alleged acts of sexual and physical abuse of children by its members between 1952 and 1992 at St Williams, a residential institution at Market Weighton for boys in need of care....
An Edgware contractor has been fined after the routine inspection of a construction site discovered dangerous working conditions.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inspectors saw contractors working some three metres above ground without measures in place to prevent them from falling. A Prohibition Notice was immediately served on the Principal Contractor, preventing further work at height until adequate safeguards were in place.
In a prosecution brought by HSE, Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard that a follow-up inspection of the site later the same day, found working at height was still continuing, but no measures had been taken to comply with the Prohibition Notice.
The contractor pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £2,000, and ordered to pay costs of £1,500.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector, David King, said:
"Last year 50 construction workers died following incidents on sites, with work at height being the largest factor in this. Therefore it is essential that everybody involved in the construction industry takes appropriate action to manage work at height safely, and other major hazards on their site, to prevent needless injury and loss of life."
The lowest ever recorded figures for road casualties in Scotland have been published, according to Minister for Transport Keith Brown.
The latest figures for 2011 show road casualties are 4% lower than in 2010, and include an 11% drop in fatalities over the same period.
Mr Brown said:
“We in the Scottish Government are very aware of the tragic and personal cost of every fatality on our roads. I am therefore encouraged by the very latest data which shows total reported road casualties are now at their lowest level since records began. The number of casualties last year dropped by 575 - a fall of 4% on 2010 figures. There has also been a drop of 5% on those seriously injured and a further reduction of 11% on fatalities.
“My deepest sympathies are of course with all of those who have been affected by incidents on our roads and we accept one death is simply one too many. That is why we are doing everything we can to reduce the numbers of casualties further.”
The Scottish Government has recently published its study into the current system for medical negligence claiming in Scotland.
The study was commissioned to inform the work of the No-fault Compensation Review Group which was established in 2009 to consider the potential benefits to patients of the introduction of a no-fault compensation scheme for medical negligence claims in Scotland.
According to the Executive Summary, findings suggest that patients' grievances, complaints and even claims are not necessarily related to a specific medical event but rather to communication problems, staff attitudes and poor general care. An improved complaints procedure would give complainants a greater sense that they were listened to and that lessons were learnt from their complaint.
The settlement of a claim is influenced by a range of factors. This includes the level of experience of the pursuer’s solicitor in medical negligence claiming and the financial value of the claim. Relatively small value claims appear less likely to result in settlement. In those which settle, the cost of dealing with the claim often exceeds the award. The research suggests that small financial claims might be better dealt with through a complaints system which permitted a moderate level of financial payment in some claims.
The study explored the potential expenditure implications of a no-fault scheme based on the analysis of data on closed cases. Estimates were calculated based on a range of assumptions about how a no-fault system might operate as well as costs of the current system in recent years. At the lower end estimates for a no-fault compensation scheme would be similar to the cost of existing schemes whilst at the upper end, costs could increase by one half.
A no-fault scheme will not necessarily address non-clinical aspects of care. It is therefore important that any new scheme is linked into the wider process by which patients attempt to resolve disputes.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0.
Potentially deadly asbestos fibres were spread in part of a shop by unqualified workmen and left on the premises for three weeks.
In a prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Cardiff Magistrates heard that the company, which specialises in damp and timber repairs, committed four offences and was fined a total of £18,000 and ordered to pay £5,314 in costs.
The company was contracted to carry out the work in an antiques shop in the Vale of Glamorgan. Employees were sent to work on the site to survey and strip out parts of the building affected by damp and wood rot, without checking for the presence of asbestos.
None of the workers had received sufficient information, instruction or training in asbestos awareness or removal and the company did not have a license to remove or handle asbestos containing materials.
Asbestos insulation boards were removed in a back room by one of the workers and the ceiling was demolished. The uncontrolled removal of the asbestos boards and demolition work caused the disturbance and spread of potentially deadly asbestos fibres.
Instead of arranging for the proper disposal of the asbestos, the dust was swept into rubble bags and dumped in a skip lorry, along with the asbestos insulation boards. The asbestos material was immediately identified at the waste transfer site and were collected by the company and left in the backyard of the shop.
The owners of the building contacted the HSE and then arranged for a licensed removal company to undertake a full environmental clean of the building.
HSE Inspector, Steve Richardson, speaking after the case, said: "This incident was entirely preventable and would not have happened if the company had provided adequate information, instruction and training to its staff.
"The company had no procedures to check for the presence of asbestos and as a result, has put the health of its workers and the shopowners at risk of potentially fatal asbestos-related lung diseases."
An eleven-year-old girl has been awarded around £11 million in compensation for serious injuries she suffered at birth, reports the Guardian....
A golfer has been awarded just under £400,000 in damages after he lost an eye in an accident on a golf course in West Lothian, reports the BBC.
The 44-year-old had been walking from one hole to the next when he was hit on the head by a ball struck by a golfer on the 18th tee. The impact caused so much damage that he now wears a prosthetic eye.
Anthony Phee sued both the golfer responsible for hitting the ball and Niddry Castle golf club for damages. The defendants had claimed contributory negligence, saying that Mr Phee looked up when he heard the shout of 'fore', however the judge rejected this and instead accepted evidence that Mr Phee had tried to shield his head. He ruled that the golfer hitting the ball was 70% liable for the accident, and the golf club 30% liable.