Home / UK Public Liability Claims (page 2)

UK Public Liability Claims

In the UK, public liability claims are made against shops, restaurants and other places of public access when you have sustained an injury due to the negligence of the business or organisation which owed you a duty of care. Typical accidents which lead to public liability claims in the UK are trip, slips and falls, but injuries such as food poisoning in a restaurant and injuries to children in a playground also qualify as UK public liability claims.

Establishing negligence in UK public liability claims is not always straightforward and, due to insurance companies keen to minimise their losses, pressure is often put upon victims to accept inappropriate compensation settlements. At a time when your injuries may incapacitate you from collecting the evidence you need in order to make public liability claims in the UK, or your accident has happened abroad while you were on holiday and you are unable to return, it is in your best interests to speak directly to a solicitor on our freephone injury claims advice service to receive impartial and practical advice about UK public liability claims.

Our solicitors will advise you whether you have UK public liability claims for compensation which are worth your while to pursue, build the strongest possible claim for public liability injury compensation on your behalf and negotiate the maximum possible settlement of public liability injury compensation in the shortest possible time. Many public liability claims in the UK qualify for “No Win, No Fee” legal representation which means that you do not have to pay for our solicitor´s time should you lose your public liability claim, whereas you will keep 100 percent of your public liability injury compensation settlement should your claim be successful.

Claim against Ryanair for Head Injury Resolved in Court

A young girl´s claim against Ryanair for a head injury sustained during a flight from Poland to East Midlands airport has been resolved in Dublin without admission of liability by the airline company.

Klaudia Adamczyk from Wroclaw in Poland was just eight years of age when, on 24th September 2010, she was travelling on a Ryanair flight from Wroclaw to East Midlands airport with her family. As the plane landed, and passengers began to retrieve their luggage from the overhead lockers, a heavy item of luggage fell from the overhead locker above Klaudia and struck her on the back of the head.

Klaudia was upset at the time, but with no apparent evidence of injury, the family continued on their trip. It was only ten days later – when Klaudia´s mother noticed blood in her daughter´s ear – that a medical examination was sought and an x-ray of Klaudia´s skull revealed a fracture. Klaudia received hospital treatment for her injury, but was not allowed to participate in any physical activities for six months and still suffers occasional headaches.

Through her mother – Betya – Klaudia made a claim against Ryanair for a head injury; alleging that the item of luggage which had hit her had been forced into the overhead locker prior to takeoff, and that Ryanair had been negligent by failing to exercise due diligence with the distribution of cabin luggage. Ryanair denied liability for Klaudia´s head injury, and the case was brought before Ms Justice Mary Irvine at the High Court in Dublin, as Ryanair has its principal place of business in the Republic of Ireland.

However, before the case could be heard, Ms Justice Mary Irvine was informed that the airline had made an offer of compensation in settlement of Klaudia´s claim against Ryanair for a head injury, and that the offer of €50,000 without admission of liability had been accepted by the family. After hearing the circumstances of the injury, the judge approved the settlement, saying that it must have been a distressing experience for the young girl.

Guests Compensated for Food Poisoning at Wedding Reception

A newly-wed bride and groom – and twenty-eight of their guests – have been compensated for food poisoning at their wedding reception after the venue admitted two charges of poor food hygiene practise.

Alex and Nicola Hamill from Luton in Bedfordshire were married at the Letchworth Hall Hotel in Hertfordshire in September 2011 and, together with 118 of their guests, sat down after the ceremony to enjoy a carefully planned wedding reception.

However, soon after they left the reception for their honeymoon in Las Vegas, Alex (33) was taken ill on the plane with nausea and ­diarrhoea. Nicola (31) was taken ill two days later at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas, and the couple spent the first five days of their honeymoon crippled with what hospital tests later revealed to be campylobacter bacteria food poisoning.

On their return to the UK, Alex and Nicola discovered that twenty-eight of their guests had also suffered from food poisoning after the wedding reception, and the source of the infection was identified as the chicken liver pate which had been served as a starter at the reception, and which Nicola had complained about at the time.

Hertfordshire environmental health officers investigated the significant number of food poisoning cases and discovered that the chef at Letchworth Hall Hotel had cooked the chicken livers for the pate at 60ºC – breaching Food Standards Agency guidance which recommends heating the livers to 75ºC to prevent the possibility of campylobacter bacteria food poisoning.

The Letchworth Hall Hotel was prosecuted by Hertfordshire County Council and was fined £12,000 by magistrates after pleading guilty to two charges of poor food hygiene practise.

The couple and their affected guests each made a claim for food poisoning at the wedding reception to recover compensation for the injuries they received and loss of earnings. Alex and Nicola received £31,190 which also included the cost of their ruined honeymoon, while other settlements of food poisoning injury compensation for their guests ranged between £875 and £16,095.

Changes in Procedures for Personal Injury Claims Introduced

Further changes to the procedures for personal injury claims were introduced on 1st August which should result in the quicker settlement of lower value claims when liability is not in dispute.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) 2012 introduced a number of changes to the procedures for personal injury claims in April 2013 – most significantly the way in which “No Win, No Fee” injury claims are handled.

Since April, claimants have been personally liable for solicitor´s “Success Fees” and “After the Event” insurance premiums but have received an uplift in the value of General Damages awarded in personal injury compensation settlements to account for this.

On August 1st, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs) governing court action in England and Wales were also amended to assist in reducing the time it takes to settle personal injury claims with a value of up to £25,000 when a single party is responsible for an injury occurring and liability is admitted by that party.

The new procedures for personal injury claims in England and Wales will see negligent parties and their insurance companies allowed just one day (from 21 days) from receiving a “Letter of Claim” to acknowledge its receipt, and thirty days (from 90 days*) to inform a solicitor whether or not liability is accepted or the claim is going to be contested.

Any negligent party or insurance company who fails to adhere to these guidelines will not be able to take advantage of the Ministry of Justice Claims Portal and will face higher costs in defending the claim.

Exceptions to the Procedures for Personal Injury Claims

These measures should significant reduce how long it takes to resolve a claim for personal injury compensation where  the total value of the claim is more than £1,000 and less than £25,000; however there are a number of exceptions to the new procedures for personal injury claims:-

  • Public liability claims against an individual – for example if you have been injured in an accident in a neighbour´s home due to their negligence.
  • Any public liability claim in which you or a member of your family has contracted a disease – for example if you suffer food poisoning after eating in a restaurant
  • Any claim in which either the defendant or the claimant is bankrupt or has died, or where a claim is made against more than one party
  • Where an injury is sustained in an accident outside of England or Wales – for example while on holiday
  • Claims in which the defendant is uninsured or untraceable – for example hit and run accidents
  • Any claims for medical negligence or clinical malpractice
  • Mesothelioma claims for compensation

The changes to the Civil Procedure Rules do not affect the Statute of Limitations relating to how long you have to make a claim for personal injury compensation after the date of knowledge that an injury has been sustained, and only apply to injuries diagnosed on or after 1st August 2013.

If you have any questions regarding how the changes in procedures for personal injury claims may affect you, it is recommended that you speak with a personal injury claims solicitor at the first possible opportunity.

 (*) Employers and insurance companies providing Employer Liability Insurance will have forty days to conduct an investigation into your work injury claim and advise your solicitor whether or not liability is accepted.

Injury Compensation for a Boat Accident Approved in Court

A young woman, who was told she would never walk again after an accident on the River Orwell, has had a settlement of injury compensation for a boat accident approved in the High Court.

Rebecca Coles from Basildon in Essex sustained devastating injuries in a powerboat accident in May 2008 when she was just 14 years of age. Rebecca was being towed on an inflatable rubber ring behind a powerboat on the River Orwell, when the driver of the boat swerved to avoid a yacht. The action of the powerboat driver caused the inflatable rubber ring to swing round and smash into the bow of another boat, causing Rebecca to sustain life-threatening injuries.

Rebecca was taken to Addenbrooke´s Hospital in Cambridge, where she underwent emergency surgery to have part of her skull removed and a titanium plate fitted. Despite her operation, the part of Rebecca´s brain that controlled her movement was so badly damaged that doctors advised her she would never walk again. The brain damage was also responsible for Rebecca suffering permanent damage to her peripheral vision, losing 40 percent hearing in her right ear and experiencing dexterity issues with her left arm.

Through her father – Steve – Rebecca made a claim for injury compensation for a boat accident against the driver of the powerboat and, at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Teare heard that an agreement had been reached between the Coles´ legal representatives and the company who had insured the powerboat driver to settle the claim for £1.37 million.

Mr Justice Teare also heard that since her accident Rebecca underwent intensive physiotherapy and specialist rehabilitation at the Children´s Trust in Tadworth, enabling her to walk a mile in the 2010 London Marathon and achieve sufficiently high GCSE grades to study events management at college. Approving the settlement of injury compensation for a boat accident he said, “I wish the claimant well for the future, both with her studies and with her life after studies”.

Court Hears Claim for Being Blinded by a Golf Ball

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.

Compensation for Assault Course Injury Awarded to Scoutmaster

A scout leader, who broke a vertebra in his back while descending a fireman´s pole, has been awarded £167,514 in compensation for assault course injury.

Robert Wilson (49) from Bordon in Hampshire sustained his injury while leading his scout troop on the Challenge Valley assault course at Clyne Farm Centre near Swansea in August 2009. As part of the “Burma Bridge” obstacle, Robert had to slide down a fireman´s pole despite his concerns for his safety in the wet conditions.

Encouraged by a “highly confident” young instructor, Robert grasped the pole with both hands as he had been instructed, but landed badly and had to be taken to hospital by helicopter suffering from a fractured vertebra at the bottom of his spine. As Mrs Justice Swift at the High Court heard, Robert´s injury prevented him from carrying on his work as a taxi driver or providing care for his disabled wife.

Robert made a claim for assault course injury compensation, alleging that he had not been given proper instruction on how to safely descend the pole and that the landing cushion had been compacted by previous participants and was not suitable for the prevention of an injury.

Solicitors representing the Clyne Farm Centre denied liability for Robert´s injuries and defended the claim for assault course injury compensation by alleging that Robert had released his grip on the pole to “show off” to his scout troop. It was also claimed that a ladder was positioned nearby in the event that a participant did not want to descend the “Burma Bridge” obstacle via the fireman´s pole.

However, at the High Court in London, Mrs Justice Swift found in Robert´s favour; describing him as a “thoroughly genuine and honest individual” and rejected the defence claims that “[Robert] was the author of his own misfortune”.

Awarding Robert £167,514 compensation for assault course injury for his pain, suffering and loss of amenity, his lost earnings and the extra assistance he will need due to his permanent injury, Mrs Justice Swift said she had no doubt that Robert “is a genuine hard-working man” who had devoted himself to the care of his wife and their four-year-old son.

Man Awarded Compensation for a Fall at a Stately Home

A man who tripped and fell into a trench at Hopetoun House, sustaining a fractured right ankle, has been awarded £8,750 compensation for a fall at a stately home after a hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

The court heard how John Cowan (65) from Livingston in West Lothian had visited Hopetoun House in Edinburgh with his grandson in September 2008 to take part in an organised “bat walk” – a tour of the historic home in which visitors armed with torches search for bats.

When the tour was finished, John and his grandson started to make their way back to the car park. John mistakenly stepped over the edge of an unlit “ha-ha” in the dark – a landscaping feature used to keep livestock away from the main property – and fractured his ankle when he fell into the five foot deep trench on the other side.

After receiving legal advice, John made a claim for a fall at a stately home against the Hopetoun House Preservation Trust. The Trust disputed John´s claim, stating that instructions were given by the tour guide on how to return to the car park at the end of the tour; however John said he had not heard the guide issue instructions, as he had taken his grandson to the toilet at the time.

Before Lord Bracadale at the Court of Sessions, Countryside Ranger Peter Stevens gave evidence that he had gathered the entire group inside the Ranger Centre at the end of the tour and gave directions on returning to the car park. He testified that, had he known John and his grandson were absent from the group, he would have given them individual instructions when they returned from the toilet.

However, Lord Bracadale found in John´s favour; stating that he considered Ranger Stevens to be mistaken. The judge acknowledged that, as John was carrying a torch at the time, there was an issue of contributory negligence involved and he reduced the proposed settlement of compensation for a fall in a stately home from £35,000 to £8,750.

Shop Sign Injury Claim Resolved in Court

A woman, who suffered a head injury when a shoe shop store sign fell loose from its fascia, has had her shop sign injury claim for compensation resolved in court.

Bournemouth and Poole County Court heard how the claimant, Ms Benham, was walking past the tReds shoe store in Old Christchurch Street, Bournemouth, in October 2010, when the metal 15 feet long shop sign fell from the fascia and hit her on the head.

The sixty-one year-old woman was initially treated at the scene of her accident by paramedics after a witness to her accident phoned 999, and was then taken to the Royal Bournemouth Hospital where she was diagnosed with a blunt closed head injury.

After Ms Benham had recovered from her initial trauma, she sought legal advice and made a compensation claim for a shop sign injury against tReds – citing that not only had she suffered a head injury due to their alleged failure to establish or maintain any adequate system of periodical maintenance or inspection of the sign, but had also suffered from anxiety throughout the following year.

The owners of the shoe store – Treds LLP – contested the shop sign injury claim and denied their liability for Ms Benham´s injuries, stating that they regularly carried out visual inspections of the store sign. As no resolution of Ms Benham´s shop sign injury claim was possible by negotiation, court proceedings were issued against Treds LLP.

At Bournemouth and Poole County Court, Ms Benham´s solicitors provided evidence to show that the shop sign had fallen because the wooden fascia to which it was attached had become rotten and tReds conducted a limited system of inspection from the ground which was insufficient to discover the rot was present in the wooden fascia board. Finding in favour of the claimant, Judge Maston awarded Ms Benham £1,800 compensation for her shop sign injury.

Firm Pays Compensation for Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

A London property service company has been fined £165,000 and ordered to pay £19,000 in compensation for carbon monoxide poisoning after a successful prosecution by the Health Service Executive.

Apollo Property Services Group Limited was found guilty at the Old Bailey of breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety etc. at Work Act 1974 following an investigation into work carried out on the Abbey Road Estate in Camden, London, during which seven residents were hospitalised with carbon monoxide poisoning.

The company carried out the renovation work on the roof of the estate in February and March 2008; however it was found that they did not have an adequate system in place to identify which of the boiler flues were still in operation and the work continued without any checks being made.

The company were also found to be negligent in ensuring that the renovation work was adequately supervised, making certain that workers were made aware of the risks of working in close proximity to boiler flues or training them in safe working practices.

Judges at the Central Criminal Court fined Apollo Property Services Group Limited £165,000, ordered the company to pay £117,582 in costs and £19,000 in compensation. Residents who suffered an illness because of the company´s negligence will now be entitled to claim compensation for carbon monoxide poisoning in private civil claims.

Injury Claim for Falling in Morrisons Appeal Upheld

A woman, who made an injury claim for falling in Morrisons, has successfully appealed a judge´s verdict on the level of contributory negligence attributed to her claim.

Jean Palfrey had been shopping in her local Morrisons supermarket when she had tripped over a shelf-stacking trolley, which had been left unattended in the middle of an aisle by the assistant manager of the store while he had been helping other customers.

In her original injury claim for falling in Morrisons, the judge had found Jean and Morrisons equally liable for her injuries – ruling that the trolley “had no business being there”, but was safe in design and did not present a risk of injury.

Morrison contested the decision on the grounds that if the trolley did not present a risk of injury then they should not be held at all liable for Jean´s injuries, while Jean´s counsel appealed the verdict on the grounds that the trolley did indeed represent a trip hazard and the original ruling was wrong.

In the appeal hearing, Jean´s counsel argued that due to the low-lying horizontal platform, the trolley did indeed present a trip hazard at any time that it was not fully laden and that it was dangerous to leave it unattended in a place where the focus of customers would have been drawn to goods on the shelves.

The judge at the appeal hearing agreed with the argument that “in these circumstances” the shelf-stacking trolley constituted a hazard, but ruled that Jean must accept some of the responsibility for her injuries as she had seen the trolley before her trip and fall accident in Morrisons, but misjudged its configuration.

The appeal judge found Jean 20 percent liable in her claim for falling in Morrisons – thus dismissing Morrisons´ appeal – and now Jean solicitors will meet with Morrisons public liability insurers to negotiate a settlement of injury compensation for falling in Morrisons based on the appeal judge´s decision.

New Court Planned for Personal Injury Claims in Scotland

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.

Injury Claim against Ryanair Resolved Out of Court

An injury claim made against Ryanair has been resolved out of court shortly before a hearing was due to commence in Dublin.

The Circuit Civil Court heard that Malgorzata Jeneralczyk (57), from Poznan, Poland, had settled her claim for injury compensation against Ryanair for an undisclosed amount following a slip on wet steps as she disembarked a Ryanair airplane in Dublin.

Despite holding onto a safety rail as she left the airplane, Malgorzata slipped on the mobile steps and fell to the tarmac below, where she was assisted by Ryanair air crew and attended by an airport paramedic. After seeking legal advice, Malgorzata filed an injury claim against Ryanair.

In the court documents, Malgorzata had claimed 38,000 Euros in injury compensation after her fall resulted in a laceration to her left eyebrow and bruising to her left shoulder, knee, ribs and her right hand and fingers. Ryanair had disputed her claim and had filed a full defence.

However, shortly before court proceedings were due to commence, the Circuit Civil Court was told that the claim had been resolved with legal costs to be borne by Ryanair.

Lift Fall Injury Compensation Awarded in Court

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.

Claim for Slip on Grape Injury Upheld in High Court

A woman, who slipped on grapes which had fallen from a display outside a shop and injured both wrists in her subsequent fall, has had her claim for slip on grape injury upheld in the High Court.

Samira Hassan (57) from Greenford, Middlesex, took the action against shopkeeper Onkar Singh Gill (50) following her accident in 2005. While inspecting the fruit display placed on tables outside Mr Gill´s “The Stall” shop in Greenford Road, Samira slipped on grapes which had fallen from the display and fractured both her wrists.

After seeking legal advice, Samira made a claim for slip on a grape injury, claiming that the grapes on which she slipped were “mushy” and that the staff at Mr Gill´s shop had failed in their duty of care to the public. Mr Gill contested the claim – insisting that his staff had taken all reasonable steps to keep the pavement clear of debris – a County Court judge last year ruled that Mr Gill was liable for Samira´s injuries and ordered him to pay 111,859 pounds in compensation for slipping on a grape.

Mr Gill appealed the ruling but, at London´s High Court, Lord Justice Lloyd – sitting with Mr. Justice Morgan and Sir Stephen Sedley – upheld the County Court´s decision and order that Samira should receive her full settlement of compensation in respect of her claim for slipping on a grape injury.

Compensation for Child´s Leg Injury Approved in Court

A young boy, who sustained a broken leg while playing in a football tournament on council property, is to receive 20,000 Euros in compensation for child´s leg injury after a hearing in Dublin.

Kristin McMahon (11) from Dublin was competing in a football tournament organised by Bradog Youth Services Ltd when the accident occurred in June 2009. While playing on the concrete surface of the Dublin City Council owned fish market site in St. Michan´s Street, Kristin fell and hurt his leg.

Kristin was taken by ambulance to the Children´s University Hospital in temple Street, Dublin, where x-rays showed that he had fractured his tibia. Kristin was fitted with a cast which he had to wear for over a month while the bone healed.

Kristin made a compensation claim for child´s leg injury through his mother, Carol Mooney, against Bradog Youth Services Ltd and Dublin City Council – claiming that the two parties were negligent in staging a football tournament at a venue with such a risk of injury.

The two defendants admitted liability and, in a negotiated settlement, agreed to pay 20,000 Euros in compensation for the child´s leg injury. The compensation settlement was formally approved at Dublin´s Circuit Civil Court by Mr Justice Matthew Deery.

Shopping Centre Injury Claims Mount Up at Highcross

Highcross Shopping Centre in Leicester is establishing a reputation as the most hazardous shopping centre in England, with four more shopping centre injury claims having been made since Gweneth Bowler successfully sued the shopping complex in December 2011 after fracturing her shoulder due to a slip on a wet surface.

Earlier this month, an unnamed Leicestershire woman was awarded 3,700 pounds after slipping and fracturing her ankle on the same access bridge between the shopping centre car park and the John Lewis store, while three claims remain outstanding due to slip injuries sustained in the shopping centre car park.

During Gweneth Bowler´s hearing in December, a Leicester City Council health and safety official had testified that the bridge´s surface represented a slip hazard due to poor drainage and inadequate cleaning. The recommendations of the council – including the improving the drainage system in the car park – were put into place earlier this year and no accidents have subsequently been reported.

Despite Highcross admitting liability for the two resolved shopping centre injury claims, no comment was available on the outstanding claims for shopping centre injury compensation – including a serious injury to a 40 year-old female shopper who required emergency surgery for a broken femur after a slip in the shopping centre car park.

Fall in Argos Compensation Awarded for Shoulder Injury

A shopper who slipped and fell on a discarded wet wipe in Argos, injuring his shoulder in the process, has been awarded 17,500 Euros fall in Argos compensation at Dublin´s Circuit Civil Court.

Declan Conroy from East Wall, Dublin, had been shopping in the Ilac Centre branch of Argos in May 2008 when the accident occurred. While in the queue for the counter to order a lawnmower for his mother, he slipped on a wet wipe which had been left on the floor and fell – badly damaging his shoulder.

After receiving medical treatment, Declan made a claim for fall in Argos injury compensation against the store – claiming that their method of checking the store for potential hazards was negligent and he had suffered an injury as a result.

Argos denied liability for Declan´s injury; contending that CCTV footage revealed the presence of the wet wipe just six minutes before Declan´s accident and arguing that staff could not be asked to constantly monitor the condition of the floor surface in such a historically low-risk store.

However, a forensic engineer – testifying on behalf of Declan – explained that because of the extra footfall in the queuing area where Declan´s accident occurred, a higher level of vigilance should be applied. It was also revealed at the Circuit Civil Court that CCTV footage showed a woman pushing a baby buggy through the area five minutes before the wet wipe first appeared on camera.

Judge Jacqueline Linnane determined that, on the balance of probabilities, it was the woman with the baby buggy who was responsible for dropping the wet wipe and, as more than ten minutes would have elapsed between the hazard being present and Declan sustaining his injury, she was ruling that Argos was liable.  Declan was awarded 17,500 Euros for fall in Argos compensation plus costs.

Compensation for Child Hurt in Toy Shop Approved in Court

A young girl, who sustained a head injury which left her with a permanent scar after walking into a ladder in a toy store, has had a settlement of compensation for child hurt in toy shop approved at the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin.

Martyna Hyrcza (5) of Kells, County Meath, sustained the injury at Smyths Toy Store in Dublin when she was just one year of age. The accident happened in September 2008 when Martyna was visiting the store with her father and she walked into a ladder in an aisle which had not been cordoned off.

Martyna sustained a three centimetre laceration to her forehead and was taken by ambulance to the Temple Street Children´s Hospital in Dublin, where the wound was treated and drawn together with Seri-strips.

Despite the swift medical treatment, Martyna was left with a permanent scar on her forehead and, after taking legal advice, her father – Thomas – made a claim on Martyna´s behalf for child hurt in toy shop compensation.

At the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin, Mr Justice Matthew Deery heard that an offer of settlement of 21,000 Euros had been agreed between the two parties without admission of liability, and that the case was before him for approval of damages only.

Mr Justice Matthew Deery approved the compensation for child hurt in toy shop after witnessing the scar on Martyna´s head.

Tram Accident Injury Compensation Awarded in Dublin

A man who sustained a traumatic brain injury when he was struck by a tram in Dublin has had an award of tram accident injury compensation approved in the High Court.

Derek Cross (52) a painter and decorator from Clondalkin, Dublin, was struck by the tram while attempting the cross the Naas dual carriageway in the early hours of 15 September 2007 in order to catch a taxi.

Despite the driver of the tram applying the emergency brakes when he saw Derek in front of him, Derek sustained several fractured ribs and a head injury which has left him unable to work and in need of crutches if he is to walk anywhere.

After seeking legal advice, Derek made a claim for tram accident injury compensation against the operator of the tram service – Veolia Transport – South Dublin County Council and the Railway Procurement Agency, claiming that the parties were negligent in failing to provide a safe passage for pedestrians and warning signs of the risk of injury.

The three defendants denied their liability for Derek´s injury, stating that his accident was attributable to the considerable amount of drink Derek had consumed and Ms Justice Mary Irvine at the High Court in Dublin heard that Derek had been drinking with friends at the nearby Bluebell United Football Club until 1.30am and had a significant level of alcohol in his blood.

The judge also heard that an offer of settlement had also been made by the three defendants amounting to 650,000 Euros, which Derek had accepted but due to his mental impairment was before her for approval. Ms Justice Mary Irvine approved the settlement of tram accident injury compensation, stating that it was an exceptionally good offer under the circumstances of the case.

Girl Receives Settlement of Eyebrow Wax Burn Claim

A teenage girl, who sustained a severe allergic reaction after a beauty salon treatment, has been awarded 1,000 pounds in settlement of her eyebrow wax burn claim for compensation.

The unnamed girl, who developed an allergic reaction to the eyebrow wax used in a treatment at the Crop Beauty Salon in October 2011, claimed in her action against the salon that it had failed to ensure that a safe product was used and as a result she sustained burns, swelling and redness to her eyebrows.

At the approval of her eyebrow wax burn claim, the court heard how the girl returned home from the beauty salon with a headache and puffy eyes. She went straight to the Accident and Emergency Department of her local hospital where she was diagnosed with a severe allergic reaction.

The reaction lasted for three weeks, during which time the girl suffered considerable pain which led to a loss of amenity. After seeking legal action, the teenager made a claim for eyebrow wax burn injury compensation and, after reviewing the girl´s claim, the Crop Beauty Salon admitted liability.

A compensation settlement of 1,000 pounds was agreed for the girl´s eyebrow wax burn claim and, as the girl was under the age of eighteen, settlement of the claim was first approved by the court before the claim could be concluded.