UK Injury Compensation News

A food company in Derbyshire has been fined £32,192 after a Health and Safety Executive investigation into an injury at work found the company responsible for the accident due to a failure to train.

The accident at Loscoe Chilled Foods in Ilkeston, Derbyshire, occurred in November 2011, when an employee attempted to remove some meat from the blade of a mincing machine. The male employee removed the safety guard from the machine, but severed the tip of his left index finger on the still-revolving blade.

The injured worker was taken to hospital where he underwent emergency surgery to connect the finger tip and was off work for three weeks following the accident.

The accident was reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) under RIDDOR regulations, and a subsequent investigation found that, although the safety guard on the mincing machine was in good working order, it should only have been removed by trained operator following a specific method.

As the injured worker had not been trained on the correct removal of the machine guard, the HSE found that Loscoe Chilled Foods were in breach of Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 11 of the provision and Use of Work Equipment Act 1998 and were therefore responsible for the accident due to a failure to train.

South Derbyshire Magistrates Court heard that the company´s breach of the regulations was in spite of a previous HSE inspection in which the risk of an accident due to a failure to train had been identified and specific advice had been provided. The Magistrates fined Loscoe Chilled Foods £16,000 for their breach of the law and a further £16,192 in costs.

A firm of butcher´s in South London have been found liable for a work accident with a knife and received a substantial fine at Westminster Magistrates Court.

The firm – Rare Butchers of Distinction in Lewisham – had been investigated by officials from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an employee had suffered a severe cut to his left forearm while deboning a lamb shoulder. The employee was immediately taken to hospital for emergency medical treatment, but had to undergo intensive physiotherapy for the next three months to recover the strength in his left hand and thumb.

Following an investigation into the accident in July 2012, HSE officials found that the firm had provided their employees with wrist-length chain mail gloves and had they been given elbow-length gloves the knife accident at work could have been avoided. The HSE investigation concluded that the accident was ‘entirely preventable’ and was attributable to the lack of an adequate risk assessment.

Rare Butchers of Distinction were charged with a breach of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and also offences against the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) Act 1995 as they had taken 29 days to notify the HSE of the work accident with a knife, rather than within the legally required 10 days.

At Westminster Magistrates Court, Rare Butchers of Distinction pleaded guilty to both charges related to  work accident with a knife and were fined £2,750 with costs of £3,690.

A civilian police employee, who was forced to retire from his job after an accident at work, has been successful in his claim for injury compensation for a fall down stairs.

The unnamed 61-year-old maintenance officer from Wakefield in West Yorkshire strained his back during a fall down a flight of stairs leading into the basement of the West Yorkshire Police Headquarters in November 2008.

Following his accident, the civilian employee took eight months off from work; however, when he returned on light duties, his inability to lift without pain forced him into early retirement.

After seeking legal advice, it was established that the fall could have been prevented had a hand rail been present on the flight of stairs and the civilian employee made a claim for injury compensation for a fall down stairs against his former employers.

West Yorkshire Police denied liability for the accident and injury and the claim proceeded to Leeds County Court, where a judge found the police authority negligent in failing to conduct a risk assessment and install a hand rail.

The judge further found that, due to the nature of the claimant´s injuries, his retirement had been brought forward by six months with the resultant loss of income, and awarded the claimant £17,000 in injury compensation for a fall down stairs plus costs.

A Sheffield machine operator is to receive £6,500 in compensation after his claim for a foot injury in a factory was settled out of court by his employers.

Michael Kirby sustained his injury in a factory accident at local company Ross & Catherall Limited. Michael, who was working as a machine operator, was using a scissor clamp to move five feet long alloy bars – as he had been trained to do – when one of the bars fell out of the clamp and landed on his left foot.

Despite wearing steel toe-capped boots with a metatarsal guard, the weight of the alloy bar was so great that it fractured two metatarsal bones in his left foot. Michael was taken to hospital and his foot fitted with an aircast boot. He was also given crutches in order that he still had limited mobility.

Subsequent to making a report of his factory accident to his employers, working practises were changed at Ross & Catherall Limited so that the alloy bars were now moved with a different type of clamp that had curved interlocking forks to improve safety to the machine operators.

Michael sought legal advice from his union and made an injury compensation claim for a foot injury in a factory on the grounds that he had been trained to move the alloy bars in an unsafe way, and that no risk assessment had been performed on the tasks carried out by machine operators until after his accident.

Ross & Catherall Limited admitted liability for Michael´s accident and settled his claim for a foot injury in a factory for £6,500.

Teaching unions have revealed figures which suggest that the amount of work injury compensation for teachers paid in 2012 exceeded £25 million.

The NASUWT union – the largest trade union representing teachers and school leaders in the UK – said it had secured a record £15.6m for its members last year, almost 24% more than in 2011, while the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) said it had obtained more than £4.3m for members and the work injury compensation for teachers acquired by the NUT assumed to be slightly more.

Despite the National Union of Teachers declining to provide an overall total of work injury compensation for teachers in 2012, one of its members received the largest individual payment of teachers injury compensation – being awarded £382,930 after his arm was slammed into a filing cabinet by a pupil, leading to a complex regional pain syndrome which resulted in the teacher being forced to give up his job.

In other reported settlements of teachers injury compensation:-

• A special school teacher was awarded £279,381 in compensation for an injury to a teacher after suffering a back injury and psychological trauma when she fell from a minibus due to an autistic pupil jumping on her.
• A 39-year-old technology teacher received a £240,000 settlement of teachers work injury compensation after working in a poorly ventilated workshop which left him with allergies and sinus problems.
• A teacher from Northern Ireland, who slipped on a patch of moss and broke her leg in two places and dislocated her ankle, was awarded £66,291 in compensation for an injury to a teacher.

Commenting on the amount of work injury compensation for teachers awarded in 2012, Chris Keates – NASUWT general secretary – said: “Behind every one of these cases is a person who has been damaged physically or mentally. The distress and pressure of the incident to the individual teacher and their family has often been compounded by years of legal action and court proceedings before any award is made. While compensation is important, it can never make up for the fact that many of these teachers suffer permanent physical and mental injury and often cannot continue in their chosen career.”

A Stansted baggage handler, who sustained debilitating injuries after being hit by a buggy towing luggage, has settled his claim for a broken back at work against his employers out of court.

Mick Draper (64) from Braintree in Essex, sustained his injury while working for air cargo company Swissport at Stansted Airport in March 2009. A buggy, used for transporting trailers full of luggage, drove into Mick while he was standing by an empty trolley, knocking him several feet onto a nearby luggage chute.

Mick, although in pain, continued to work for several weeks until one morning in April 2009 he woke up unable to move. After being referred for physiotherapy, he was diagnosed by specialists as having three broken bones in his back and had to undergo a series of reconstructive operations; despite which Mick finds it difficult to walk, lift and carry out simple domestic tasks.

An investigation into the accident revealed that the buggy driver who lost control of his vehicle had been allowed to work seventeen hour shifts for the previous eleven days – despite warnings to the Swissport management that this was dangerous by union officials. Mick contacted a solicitor and made a claim for a broken back at work against his employers.

Swissport acknowledged that they had allowed the health and safety of their baggage handlers to be put at risk and agreed to an undisclosed out of court settlement of compensation for a broken back at work.

The Court of Sessions in Edinburgh is currently hearing a claim for being blinded by a golf ball, in which the claimant suffered a traumatic rupture of the right eye after being hit in the face on the Leven Links golf course.

David McMahon (70) from Leven in Fife was acting as a ball watcher during the Scottish Amateur Champion of Champions competition in April 2009 when he was hit in the face by a golf ball which had been struck by 28-year-old Gavin Dear of Scone in Perthshire.

Mr McMahon alleged in his claim for being blinded by a golf ball that Mr Dear had not shown reasonable care prior to playing his approach shot to the sixth green and should have been aware that he was in the path of the shot, having just moved two spectators who had strayed onto the perimeter of the sixth fairway from the path.

Mr McMahon, giving evidence to Lord Jones at the Court of Sessions, said that there had been no warning shout of “fore” or he would have gone to ground to prevent his injury from occurring.

In his defence, Gavin Dear stated that neither he nor the two players who were accompanying him saw Mr McMahon or the two spectators and, although he noticed a golf buggy by the side of the course, proceeded to take his shot due to the lack of any activity in its vicinity.

Solicitors representing Mr Dear argued that he acted at all time with reasonable care and denied the claim for being blinded by a golf ball. They alleged that it was only after the ball was struck that Mr McMahon emerged without warning from behind the golf buggy.

The case continues in the Court of Sessions.

A pensioner, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma due to being exposed to asbestos fibres, has been awarded £160,000 compensation for occupational lung cancer.

Eli Richards (76) from Great Wyrley in Staffordshire made the claim for occupational lung cancer compensation against his former employers – Armitage Shanks – after solicitors found a connection between Eli´s condition and the duties he had while employed at the company´s factory in Bushbury, Wolverhampton.

Eli, who had never smoked in his life and played table tennis and five-a-side football into his sixties, worked as a toolmaker for the bathroom appliance company for seventeen years. During this time he cut asbestos boards without ever being warned of the dangers of working with asbestos or being provided with any personal protective equipment to prevent him from breathing in the deadly fibres.

When he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, Eli took legal advice and made a claim for occupational lung cancer against Armitage Shanks. Armitage Shanks quickly acknowledged their liability for Eli´s mesothelioma condition and negotiated a settlement of £160,000 compensation for occupational lung cancer.

A claim for a back injury to a nurse has been upheld in the High Court after it was ruled an injury sustained by a senior nurse working at Epsom Hospital´s Outpatients Department was not due to her contributory negligence.

Senior Sister Sue Germaine had arrived early at the Outpatients Department one Monday morning in March 2008 to prepare the department for the day´s clinics. She discovered that over the weekend contractors had moved the rows of metal seating in the waiting area to lay new flooring and failed to replace them.

Sister Germaine asked porters to move the rows of seating as they were blocking the doors to the consultation rooms, but was told that they were too busy elsewhere. She also requested that somebody from the maintenance department was sent to help her, but was informed that it was not their job, and reported the situation to the project manager responsible for overseeing the contractor´s work.

As patients were starting to arrive – some of whom were elderly and needed a seat – Sister Germaine took it upon herself to replace the metal rows of seating but, as she moved the last one into position, injured her back. A report was made through her line manager and incident forms were filed in April and May.

After seeking legal advice, Sister Germaine made a claim for back injury to nurse against the Epsom and St Heller University Hospitals NHS Trust for compensation in respect of the pain and suffering she had experienced and also for the loss of income she had suffered due to having to leave her job due to her injury.

The NHS Trust admitted liability for Sister Germaine´s injury but alleged that, by moving the seating rather than wait for a porter to be available, she had contributed to her accident and injury by failing to apply her manual handling training, failing to apply her knowledge and experience as a senior nurse and by failing to consider alternatives.

At the High Court in London, Judge Simon Brown QC found in favour of Sister Germaine´s claim for a back injury to a nurse and stated that there was no viable argument of contributory negligence to answer. The judge stated that Sister Germaine had made accident reports following her injury which clearly identified an issue without apportioning blame.

He said that the contractors, project manager and hospital porters had failed to do their jobs properly and the manual handling training Sister Germaine had been given related to the moving of patients and not of hospital furniture. In the circumstances, it had not been reasonably practicable for Sister Germaine to avoid moving the seating as she had widely asked for help but had been refused it.

Sister Germaine´s claim for a back injury to a nurse will now go forward to be assessed for damages.

It may not be too late for many former and current British Telecom employees, who have suffered a loss of hearing due to using faulty testing sets, to claim BT engineers hearing injury compensation.

In August 2010 – in the case of Watkins v British Telecommunications – BT acknowledged that engineers had been provided with equipment to test, trace and install telephone lines which produced loud, high-pitched tones and damaged the hearing.

The case resulted in many claims for BT engineers hearing injury compensation being made and, as many of the injuries had been sustained years before, BT announced it would not enforce the three-year Statute of Limitations which usually limits an employer´s liability for workplace injuries.

However, in June 2012, the company reversed its decision to allow former employees a limitless period in which to claim compensation for BT engineers hearing injuries, and stated that – from January 1st 2013 – any BT engineer claim for hearing injury compensation would be subject to the three-year Statute of Limitations.

This means that current and former employees who have been diagnosed with a hearing injury within the last three years which is attributable to BT´s negligence are still entitled to claim compensation for BT engineers hearing injuries and receive recompense for their premature loss of hearing.

Employees not involved with the testing of lines, but who have suffered a loss of hearing due to working in close proximity to excessive noise while a line installation was in progress, and who were not provided with adequate protection for their hearing, are also entitled to claim compensation – subject to their hearing injury being diagnosed within the last three years.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) has recommended any current or former BT employee suffering from tinnitus, premature deafness or damaged hearing due to their working conditions to seek legal advice at the first possible opportunity.

A woman, who suffered soft tissue damage to both ankles in a loading bay accident, is to receive £30.000 in compensation for a slip on a pallet at work.

Katrin Weiss (36) from Intake in Sheffield was employed as an Operations Manager for the Rotherham-based window frame and door manufacturer Bereco Ltd when her accident happened early last year.

Covering for a colleague who was absent through illness, Katrin was asked to work late to ensure that a delivery was despatched on time. Most of the packed pallets for delivery had been loaded onto the lorry, but several bundles of handles and frames remained.

In order to get to these, Katrin had to clamber over another pallet which had its edges concealed by a sheet of plywood and, as Katrin climbed back down, she slipped on the edge of the pallet and fell – badly twisting one ankle and sustaining substantial ligament damage in the other.

Katrin was taken to the Northern General Hospital where doctors fixed two screws into her ankle to try and stabilise the injury. However, the ligaments failed to heal and Katrin had to undergo two further operations before a metal frame was inserted into her foot in December 2011 to improve her mobility.

After seeking legal advice, Katrin made a claim for injury compensation for a slip on a pallet at work, claiming that in addition to her injury she had been left with a five-and-a-half-inch scar on her leg, had suffered a considerable loss of amenity during her recovery and had been unable to work for fifteen months after the accident. It is also probable that Katrin will suffer a degenerative form of arthritis in the future.

Katrin claimed in her action that her employers had been negligent by not providing her with any training relating to how to load the lorry safely and that she was not made aware of any risks associated with the task she had been asked to perform.

Bereco Ltd admitted their liability for Katrin´s injuries after an internal investigation and an out-of-court settlement was agreed in which Bereco Ltd would pay Katrin £30,000 in compensation for her slip on a pallet at work.

A teaching assistant, who sustained a permanent mobility injury when she tripped over the strap of a wheelchair, has resolved her claim for a trip at school after her employers agreed an out-of-court settlement.

Julie Anne Huddart (49) from Chorley in Lancashire, was working as a teaching assistant in a local school when, in 2003, she attempted to move a wheelchair which had been left as an obstruction in a classroom. As she started to move the wheelchair, she tripped over the waist strap which was lying on the floor and fell – sustaining an elbow injury and dislocating a finger.

As a result of her trip at school accident, Julie Anne developed reflex sympathetic dystrophy – a condition which restricts her movement down the left side of her body and causes pain due to the damage done to her nervous system. The mother of two has been unable to return to her job as a result of her injuries and now relies on her husband for her day-to-day care.

After seeking legal advice, Julie Anne made a claim for a trip at school against her employers – Lancashire County Council. The council initially denied their liability for Julie Anne´s injuries but, after the prospect of court action was raised, Lancashire County Council relented and agreed a compensation settlement of £800,000 in respect of her claim for a trip in school.

Eight men, who all work in a shock absorber manufacturing plant, have made factory respiratory injury claims against their employer after an excessive level of hexavalent chromium was discovered  in their work environment.

The eight employees of Tenneco Inc, Hartwell, Georgia, have each been diagnosed with nasal injuries and respiratory problems allegedly due to their exposure to hexavalent chromium – a known carcinogenic compound which can cause cancer. In their claims for factory respiratory injury it is alleged that they had complained about the strong odour of the compound in 2010, but that their employer took no action for a year – exacerbating their injuries.

The factory respiratory injury claims have been made not only against Tenneco, but also against the designers of a ventilation system in installed to protect the workers from risk of injury, the company who installed it in 2007 and also a health and safety company who conducted an air quality test in 2011 after complaints from the workers – but failed to notice that Tenneco management had opened all the windows in the factory.

A later inspection in 2011 by the Government´s Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA) found levels of hexavalent chromium well above those permitted in health and safety regulations and fifteen further violations which placed the men at risk of injury. Following a follow-up OHSA inspection in February 2012, Tenneco was fined $78,000 for failing to reduce the high levels of hexavalent chromium in the work environment.

A female employee of the University of East Anglia is to receive an out of court settlement of compensation for slipping on a wet floor at the university after sustaining permanent knee damage.

The claimant, identified in court papers as Ms Turnbull (48), sustained her injury after slipping on rain water which had been walked into the university in December 2008. Immediately after she fell in the university corridor, she felt a sharp pain in her right knee which was later diagnosed as an injury to the articular cartilage over her femoral condyle.

Despite undergoing an arthroscopy, Ms Turnbull continued to experience ongoing discomfort and pain whenever she walked on an incline or had to climb or descend stairs. She had difficulty when walking long distances, driving for more than 60 miles and had to give up her hobbies of swimming, dog walking and aerobics because of her knee injury.

Further medical examination revealed that the damage to Ms Turnbull´s knee was irreparable and that over time she would experience degenerative change and osteoarthritis. Her doctor´s concluded that she would ultimately require knee replacement surgery between the ages of 60 and 65.

After seeking legal advice, Ms Turnbull made a claim for slipping on the wet floor against the university, alleging that they were in breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing to install a mat or suitable floor surface which would eliminate the risk of a slip accident, and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 for failing to provide and maintain safe access to her place of work.

The University of East Anglia admitted their liability for Ms Turnbull´s injuries and a settlement of 50,000 pounds was agreed as compensation for slipping on the wet floor of the university by both party´s legal representatives.

A 21-year-old woman has received a settlement of compensation for an employee slip in McDonalds which left her with a knee injury due to the alleged negligence of her employer.

The unnamed woman was working as a kitchen assistant in McDonalds when, in May 2010, she was walking from the kitchen into the washing area and slipped on the tiled floor where water had been spilt.

Having landed on her left knee, the fall resulted in soft cartilage damage under the kneecap which left the woman unable to manage stairs and gradients for two days. She also suffered for two months from pain and stiffness in the knee.

The woman´s GP referred her for physiotherapy and she was forced to use crutches – restricting her walking for two months. Her mother took time off work to care for her while she had two weeks off work and the woman returned to a different role so that she could sit whilst working. After two months, she returned to her pre-accident duties.

The woman brought a claim for an employee slip in McDonalds, alleging that the company failed to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 s.3.1 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 reg.3.

She also claimed that McDonalds were in breach of the Work Place Health Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992; which placed a duty of care of McDonalds to keep the floor in the workplace and the surface of every traffic route free from any substance which would cause a person to slip.

McDonalds denied their liability, but agreed to an out-of-court settlement amount to 2,076.50 pounds in compensation for a slip in McDonalds to account for the girl´s pain suffering and loss of amenity.

Figures released by the Department of Work and Pensions compensation recovery unit have indicated that workplace injury claims in Scotland increased by almost a quarter in the twelve months to March 2012.

6,191 personal injury claims were recorded by the Department of Work and Pensions during the year, as opposed to 4,955 throughout the previous twelve months and in spite of workplace accidents in Scotland reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) declining by almost 7 percent in the same period.

The percentage increase in workplace injury claims in Scotland is six times that recorded in England and Wales and, according to a leading Scottish solicitor, could increase still further. Fear of losing their job and not getting another one – particularly in the current economic climate – may have held workers back from making claims in the past he claimed but “given the preponderance of employment in agriculture and construction, plus the significant rates of accidents in this country, we would expect a lot more claims.”

Commenting on the increase of almost 50 percent in workplace deaths in Scotland, Alistair McNab – HSE head of operations in Scotland – said: “While there has been a welcome drop in injury and ill-health in Scotland, the increase in workplace deaths proves that there is no room for complacency. It is important that efforts are concentrated on managing the risks that lead to serious harm in workplaces throughout Scotland. It is unacceptable that Scottish workers are still failing to come home from work safe”.

There are two significant factors which should be taken into account when comparing the number of injuries reported to the HSE against the number of workplace injury claims in Scotland. First, as unemployment continues to rise in Scotland, the percentage decrease in workplace accidents in Scotland is much lower if measured in injuries per 100 employees.

Secondly, only reportable injuries under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) are recorded by the HSE. If an employer fails to inform the HSE of an incident – or it does not qualify under RIDDOR regulations – that accident and injury is not considered in the annual report.

More than one hundred workers at the former Phurnacite plant in Abercwmboi in South Wales will be entitled to compensation following a test case at the High Court in which four Phurnacite workers claims were upheld.

The test cases were part of a Group Litigation Order on behalf of 183 former employees of British Coal, who had developed illnesses allegedly due to working at the Abercwmboi site where waste coal was processed into smokeless fuel. The work-related illnesses varied from lung cancer and respiratory diseases to skin and bladder cancer, and were caused – according to the claim for Phurnacite workers compensation – from working in conditions which were described in court as the “dirtiest in Europe”.

The Phurnacite workers claims were made against the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who now have liability for claims made against British Coal, and alleged that British Coal had breached its statutory duties for health and safety. It was claimed in the High Court that “dust and fumes to which men were regularly exposed contained substances which were known to be harmful, indeed carcinogenic.”

After hearing testimony relating to the working conditions at the plant, Mrs Justice Swift found there was convincing evidence that diseases of the lung, namely Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), emphysema, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer could be caused by the dust and fumes produced during the manufacturing process of the Phurnacite briquettes. However, there was insufficient evidence to connect the instances of skin and bladder cancer to the working environment.

The judge said in her summing up “I decided that the operators of the plant were in breach of statutory duties owed to their employees throughout the period of its operation. There were many measures that they could have taken to minimise or eliminate altogether the risks to their workforce had they chosen to do so”. Mrs Justice Swift made awards of compensation of between 4,500 pounds and 120,000 pounds to the four successful Phurnacite workers claims.

The judge´s decision not only opens the door for the other qualifying former Phurnacite workers to make claims for compensation, but also for hundreds of other former British Coal employees throughout the country who have developed work-related illnesses due to their working conditions. Settlements of Phurnacite workers compensation will be calculated on the extent of the individual´s injury and the consequence the injury has made to the individual´s quality of life.

A woman who developed a painful elbow injury due to the angle at which she was required to operate an airgun has settled her injury claim for RSI at work against her employers.

Angela McGuckin (50) from Washington, Tyne and Wear, worked as a production operative for local company Tacle Seating – a major manufacturer of car seats – where her job consisted of using an airgun to staple fabric to the foam used to cushion the car seat.

In 2007, Angela´s employers asked her to work from a higher table, which meant that the 5ft 2in tall employee had to raise her elbow above her head to perform her job. With a week Angela had developed pains in her elbow and shoulder and had started to take painkillers.

Angela and several of her colleagues complained to Tacle Seating´s management about using the higher table, and were backed up by a letter from the company doctor recommending that the table be lowered. However, nothing was done in response to Angela´s complaint except being provided with a stool – which was later removed as it was considered to be a tripping hazard.

The table on which Angela worked was eventually lowered in August 2008, but Angela´s condition had deteriorated so much that she had to undergo surgery in October 2008. After taking three months off of work to recover from the operation on her elbow, Angela returned to work but the pain continued.

Angela took legal advice and made an injury claim for RSI at work against her employers – alleging that the working practices at Tacle Seating were in breach of Health and Safety Executive guidelines which state that any type of repetitive working involving the elbow must not require it to be lifted above shoulder height.

Tacle Seating acknowledged their liability for Angela´s injury, settling her injury claim for RSI at work in the amount of 60,000 pounds.

A new court is to be established in Edinburgh which will deal exclusively with personal injury claims in Scotland in line which recommendations made in Lord Gill´s review of the Scottish court system.

The 2009 review found that personal injury claims in Scotland – which can currently be heard in the Court of Sessions if their anticipated value is in excess of 5,000 pounds – were taking too long to process and the system was becoming too expensive to maintain.

The news was greeted with general approval by trade union organisations and solicitors, who believe the new system will result in fairer and more consistent levels of personal injury compensation in Scotland when claimants have been injured in accidents at work, on the roads and in places of public access through no fault of their own.

Despite statistics showing no real increase in the number of personal injury claims in Scotland, one leading solicitor was quick to refute suggestions that the new court was needed because of a growing “compensation culture” in Scotland.

“‘Compensation culture’ is just a phrase that has been created to put people off making claims and save the insurance industry money” he said. “You don’t stop claims by preventing people who are injured seeking just redress. You stop claims by preventing accidents in the first place.”

Legislation next autumn is expected to confirm the establishment of the new court and it is anticipated that its venue will announced as Edinburgh´s Parliament House – where personal injury claims in Scotland are already heard by Court of Session judges, but who in future will be replaced with experienced Sheriffs.

A woman, who sustained serious leg injuries when a lift she was travelling in at work fell twenty-three floors, has been awarded more than 13 million dollars in lift fall injury compensation by a jury in Florida.

Janice Beasley from Jacksonville, Florida, experienced the traumatic event in May 1999 after entering the lift to descend from her office on the twenty-third floor. The forty-one year old office worker was thrown to the floor of the lift as it first fell to the eighth floor of the building and then suddenly came to a stop.

An engineer was called to attend to the malfunctioning lift, but rather than help Janice to escape from the lift, he attempted to move it and sent it crashing to the basement below. Janice escaped with serious bruising, but this quickly deteriorated into Complex Region Pain Disorder – causing a partial paralysis of Janice´s left leg and confining her to a wheelchair – and Janice was also diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and chronic depression.

Janice made a claim for lift fall injury compensation against the owners of the building – Highwoods Properties Inc – and the company responsible for servicing the lifts – Schindler Elevator Company. Schindler Elevator Company denied responsibility for Janice´s injury and delayed the claims procedure with complex legal questions to avoid their liability.

However, when the case came to court – thirteen years after her accident happened – Janice was rewarded for her perseverance by the Duval County jury and, after a trial lasting two weeks, she was awarded 13,188,000 dollars in lift fall injury compensation for her injuries, with both defendants found guilty of negligence and liable for her injuries.