To download a Word file of this content, click here
Personal Injury Titles ~ September 2021
- Abused Violin Student Awarded £45,000
- Childhood Blighted by Local Authority Failings? Consult a Solicitor Today
- Don’t Expect Your Personal Injury Evidence to Go Unchallenged
- High Court Ruling Boosts Cancer Patient’s Clinical Negligence Claim
- Man Secures Damages for Abuse Suffered as a Child
- Medical Negligence – Delay in Consulting a Solicitor Can Be Disastrous
- Motorist’s U-Turn Was Sole Cause of Catastrophic Accident, Court Rules
- Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock – Guideline High Court Ruling
Abused Violin Student Awarded £45,000
Sexual abuse of pupils by their teachers is thankfully much less common than it used to be, in large part thanks to perpetrators being publicly brought to book in both the criminal and civil courts. In a case on point, a talented teenager who was preyed upon by her violin teacher was awarded substantial compensation.
The girl was an overseas student at a British music school and was aged between 15 and 16 when the teacher molested her. He was implicitly trusted by the girl’s parents, who had appointed him her guardian. Many years after the event, she launched proceedings against the school.
Ruling on the case, the High Court noted that her claim had been lodged far outside the three-year time limit that normally applies to personal injury cases. However, she had put forward cogent and compelling reasons for the delay and the Court found that the balance of justice came down decisively in favour of permitting her to proceed with her case.
The Court found that the teacher had sexually abused her in a practice room at the school, in his car and at his flat. He exploited the opportunities presented to him as her teacher and guardian, initiating and controlling what happened physically and sexually and its escalation to full intercourse.
Ruling the school vicariously liable for the teacher’s wrongdoing, the Court found that it did not matter that much of the abuse took place outside the school gates. All of the abuse flowed from his manipulative acts of grooming, committed in a teacher-pupil setting. The school conferred authority on him and the employment relationship gave him both access to the girl and the opportunity to betray his position of trust. The school was ordered to pay her £45,000 in damages, together with her legal costs.
Sometimes, achieving a fair outcome requires doggedness and determination. Our experienced team are here to help.
Childhood Blighted by Local Authority Failings? Consult a Solicitor Today
If you feel that your life has been blighted by a local authority’s failure to protect you during your childhood, you should consult a lawyer straight away. In a case on point, a young man who should have been removed from his mother’s care and placed for adoption as a baby won the right to compensation.
A local authority had been concerned about the behaviour of the man’s mother even before his birth. He exhibited behavioural problems as he grew up and a strategy meeting and a child protection conference were held. He was not, however, placed on the child protection register. Only when he was seven years old did the council obtain a care order on the basis that he was suffering, or was likely to suffer, significant harm in his mother’s care.
After proceedings were launched on his behalf, the council swiftly admitted liability on the basis that it had breached the duty it owed him as a vulnerable child. It also conceded that, but for that breach, he would have been taken from his mother’s care and placed for adoption in the first month of his life.
Seven years after those formal admissions were made, however, the council sought judicial permission to withdraw them. It asserted that a recent sea change in the law, arising from a Supreme Court ruling, had rendered the man’s claim untenable. Following two hearings, permission was refused by a judge.
Dismissing the council’s challenge to that ruling, the Court of Appeal found that it would not be just, fair or appropriate to permit it to go back on admissions that were made so long ago. Such a course would cause obvious prejudice to the man whose lawyers had for years proceeded on a non-adversarial basis on the assumption that the council had irrevocably conceded liability. The Court’s ruling meant that the man would in due course receive appropriate compensation.
Our experienced team will fight hard to ensure you obtain the compensation you deserve.
Don’t Expect Your Personal Injury Evidence to Go Unchallenged
Those who claim compensation following an accident must be prepared to have their evidence robustly challenged in court. A case on point concerned a man who was struck on the back by a heavy scaffolding pole at work.
The welder and fabricator was bent over on all fours when the pole, which probably weighed more than 25 kg, hit him. Although he suffered no broken bones or other identifiable trauma, he said that he had been stricken by serious back pain ever since. He claimed that all areas of his life were affected, including his capacity for manual work, and that he was in need of continuing care and assistance.
After he launched proceedings, a scaffolding company admitted liability for the accident. However, it disputed the extent of his disabilities and their effect on his capacity to work and look after himself. Amongst other evidence, the company relied on covertly shot video footage that was said to show him going about his life in an apparently pain-free manner.
Ruling on the case, a judge acknowledged that the accident must have been a very painful and frightening experience. There was no doubt that the man had suffered both injury and pain for which he stood to be compensated. The extent of his ongoing pain was, however, some way short of the level he claimed.
Although he was psychologically vulnerable and endured pain that was at times very uncomfortable, the judge found that it had not kept him out of the employment market for more than six months. He had pre-existing back problems and the scarcity of work in his specialist field meant that he had not suffered any loss of earnings during that period.
Given a dearth of evidence, the judge also declined to make an award for care and assistance that the man was said to have received during the accident’s aftermath. Together with miscellaneous expenses, he was awarded £7,000 in general damages and a further £10,000 for the psychological suffering and pain he endured.
Says <<CONTACT DETAILS>>, “It is common for a defendant to contend that symptoms of illness or injury are being exaggerated by the claimant. Expert legal advice and evidence are necessary to ensure a just settlement is obtained.”
High Court Ruling Boosts Cancer Patient’s Clinical Negligence Claim
Health centre nurses are often the first port of call for patients and, particularly in cancer cases, the reliability of their advice can be crucial. A case on point concerned a patient who underwent radical surgery following a nurse’s negligent failure to refer a lump on his neck for further investigation.
The patient consulted the nurse at his local health centre complaining of the lump, a sore throat and a dry mouth. After he saw her for the first time, she diagnosed a suspected blocked saliva duct and advised him to suck lemons, a recognised treatment for that condition. No tests, investigations or referrals were arranged.
The lump continued to grow and he saw the nurse three more times. However, it was only about three months after the first consultation that he was seen by a consultant. When it transpired that the lump was a squamous cell carcinoma, he underwent surgery that had disfiguring and disabling side effects.
After he launched a clinical negligence claim against the nurse, liability was admitted by lawyers acting on her behalf. That was on the basis that, at the first consultation, she had failed to refer him for further investigation in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.
The nurse’s lawyers, however, subsequently applied to the High Court for permission to withdraw that admission. They did so on the basis that an expert nursing witness had changed her view of the case in the light of new evidence and that justice demanded that they be given an opportunity to defend the claim in full.
Rejecting the application, however, the Court noted that, whether or not the nurse had breached the duty she owed the man at the first consultation, she had undoubtedly been negligent on other occasions. The new argument raised by her legal team had no real prospect of success and the man would suffer serious prejudice if the admission were withdrawn at such a late stage.
Emphasising the public interest in the efficient and timely conduct of proceedings, the Court noted that other issues in the case had already been listed for trial on the basis that liability was conceded. Were the nurse’s lawyers permitted to shift their position, the trial date would inevitably have to be put back.
Errors or delays in diagnosis can lead to tragic consequences and, when this is due to the negligence of medical staff, compensation may be warranted. If you or a member of your family has suffered as a result of improper medical treatment, contact <<CONTACT DETAILS>> for advice.
Man Secures Damages for Abuse Suffered as a Child
Those whose childhoods have been blighted by sexual or physical abuse may decide to bury the past and suffer in silence. As one case showed, however, consulting a solicitor is the best way to achieve closure, fair compensation and a sense that perpetrators have been justly brought to book.
The case concerned a man in his 40s who was sexually abused by a priest when he was between the ages of 12 and 13. The priest’s role at his Catholic school was to provide spiritual guidance, but he repeatedly took advantage of the boy, including during confession. The boy was also subjected to physical abuse by the school’s head, who caned him so hard on his hand that it bled.
After not telling a soul about the abuse for many years, he finally launched proceedings against the diocesan authority that ran the school. In upholding his claim, a judge was utterly convinced that his account of the abuse was true and accurate.
The judge found that the priest had singled him out and preyed on him because of his vulnerability and need for support. His conduct was an abominable affront to his trusted position as an ordained clergyman. The caning incident was a cruel and excessive exercise of the head’s power over the boy and could never have been regarded as permissible chastisement.
In awarding the man £170,000 in damages, the court noted the terrible toll that the abuse took on his life. His Catholic faith was shaken to the core by what happened and he left school without any qualifications. Despite his average intelligence, his reading and writing abilities remain those of a young child.
He is still suffering from moderately severe post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the abuse, which also contributed to his depressive disorder and his problems with alcohol, which led to the destruction of his marriage.
Psychological as well as physical injury can warrant a personal injury claim. If you have experienced treatment by another person that has caused you emotional or psychological distress, contact us for advice.
Medical Negligence – Delay in Consulting a Solicitor Can Be Disastrous
If you feel that your life has been blighted by negligent medical treatment, any delay in consulting a solicitor can stymie your chances of receiving fair compensation. A pensioner whose leg had to be amputated some years after he underwent knee replacement surgery came very close to suffering precisely that outcome.
The man endured a series of painful complications following the operation on his left knee in 2009. After his condition continued to deteriorate, he underwent an above knee amputation in 2016. He launched proceedings in 2019 against the NHS trust that ran the hospital where the replacement was performed.
The trust denied claims that the man had received substandard post-operative care. It argued that his claim should in any event be dismissed in that it had been lodged far outside the three-year time limit that normally applies to clinical negligence and personal injury claims. The High Court considered that argument as a preliminary issue.
Ruling on the matter, the Court found that the man was aware by June 2012 at the latest that he had suffered a significant injury and that he might have a viable case against the trust. His claim had therefore been lodged at least seven years after time began to run and at least four years after the time limit expired.
However, the Court noted that he was not to blame for most of the delay and could not be strongly criticised. His claim had a potentially high value and was of great importance to him. A fair trial of his case remained possible despite the delay and the trust’s defence had not been seriously prejudiced. The Court exercised its discretion to waive the time limit, thus enabling him to proceed with his claim.
If you would like advice on how to make a personal injury claim, contact <<CONTACT DETAILS>>. It is important to take advice early on to ensure you are safely within the time limits that apply when making a claim for compensation.
Motorist’s U-Turn Was Sole Cause of Catastrophic Accident, Court Rules
Discerning where blame attaches for road accidents that occur in seconds can be a demanding task. In one case, however, a judge had little hesitation in finding that a motorist who attempted to make a U-turn on a trunk road bore sole responsibility for a motorbike pillion passenger’s catastrophic injuries.
The motorist was on her way to pick up her child when she pulled into a layby on the 60 mph road and commenced her turn. Her car had just crossed the road’s central white line when a motorbike that had been following her collided with her driver door. The motorist, the motorcyclist and his pillion passenger were all badly injured.
The pillion passenger came off the worst of the three, suffering a life-changing brain injury. After she launched proceedings against the motorist and her insurers, the latter settled her personal injury claim for a very substantial sum. The insurers later sought a contribution to their outlay from the motorcyclist on the basis that he was partially to blame for the accident.
Ruling on the matter, the High Court rejected arguments that the motorcyclist was travelling too fast or paying insufficient attention to what was happening in front of him. The insurers’ criticisms of him amounted to a counsel of perfection. Even bearing in mind that he was carrying a pillion passenger, his riding had not fallen below a reasonable standard. He bore no share of blame for the accident and the insurers’ contribution claim was dismissed.
Insurers will always do what they can to minimise their costs, which makes the need for strong and experienced legal representation crucial. If you have been injured as a result of an accident on the road, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact <<CONTACT DETAILS>> to discuss your claim.
Secondary Victims and Nervous Shock – Guideline High Court Ruling
It is not uncommon for people to suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing a shocking event caused by someone else’s negligence. However, as a High Court ruling showed, the circumstances in which compensation will be awarded to so-called secondary victims are tightly constrained by law.
The case involved a father whose son died five days after he was starved of oxygen during his hospital birth. Psychiatric experts were agreed that he had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to the psychological impact of seeing his critically ill son in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
The NHS trust that managed the hospital admitted liability for the boy’s death in not providing care that would have given the option of an earlier delivery. It conceded that, had his birth been expedited, he would have been uninjured. However, it denied that the father was entitled to compensation as a secondary victim.
There was no dispute that the father was physically present in the NICU and directly perceived his son, with whom he had a close tie of love and affection, fighting for life. In order to succeed in his claim, however, he had to establish that the scene he witnessed was so exceptionally shocking or horrifying as to render it reasonably foreseeable by the trust that he would suffer psychiatric injury. Ruling on the case, the Court accepted that what the father saw in the NICU was, as a matter of ordinary language, horrifying. He was awaiting what should have been the joyous birth of his second child but was instead told that his son was gravely ill and might die. That would be a nightmare for any parent.
Dismissing the claim, however, the Court noted that such events, although rare, inevitably occur from time to time, with or without clinical negligence. When his father saw him, the boy had the appearance of a sleeping newborn baby except for the many wires and tubes to which he was attached. He was peaceful, not showing any signs of distress, and there was no sense of panic in the NICU.
The Court noted that the father’s visit to the NICU must have vividly brought home to him the gravity of his son’s condition. It was undisputed that the experience triggered his PTSD. However, the scene he witnessed in the NICU was, in context, not so objectively shocking or horrifying as to fall outside the realm of ordinary human experience. The trust was therefore not liable for his psychiatric injury.
Although, in this case, the secondary victim claim was unsuccessful, witnessing the injury of a loved one or a harrowing event involving someone close to you can cause a recognisable psychiatric illness. If you have experienced such circumstances, contact us to discuss your potential right to compensation.
Abused Violin Student Awarded £45,000
Sexual abuse of pupils by their teachers is thankfully much less common than it used to be, in large part thanks to perpetrators being publicly brought to book in both the criminal and civil courts. In a case on point, a talented teenager who was preyed upon by her violin teacher was awarded substantial compensation.
The girl was an overseas student at a British music school and was aged between 15 and 16 when the teacher molested her. He was implicitly trusted by the girl’s parents, who had appointed him her guardian. Many years after the event, she launched proceedings against the school.
Ruling on the case, the High Court noted that her claim had been lodged far outside the three-year time limit that normally applies to personal injury cases. However, she had put forward cogent and compelling reasons for the delay and the Court found that the balance of justice came down decisively in favour of permitting her to proceed with her case.
The Court found that the teacher had sexually abused her in a practice room at the school, in his car and at his flat. He exploited the opportunities presented to him as her teacher and guardian, initiating and controlling what happened physically and sexually and its escalation to full intercourse.
Ruling the school vicariously liable for the teacher’s wrongdoing, the Court found that it did not matter that much of the abuse took place outside the school gates. All of the abuse flowed from his manipulative acts of grooming, committed in a teacher-pupil setting. The school conferred authority on him and the employment relationship gave him both access to the girl and the opportunity to betray his position of trust. The school was ordered to pay her £45,000 in damages, together with her legal costs.
Sometimes, achieving a fair outcome requires doggedness and determination. Our experienced team are here to help.
Man Secures Damages for Abuse Suffered as a Child
Those whose childhoods have been blighted by sexual or physical abuse may decide to bury the past and suffer in silence. As one case showed, however, consulting a solicitor is the best way to achieve closure, fair compensation and a sense that perpetrators have been justly brought to book.
The case concerned a man in his 40s who was sexually abused by a priest when he was between the ages of 12 and 13. The priest’s role at his Catholic school was to provide spiritual guidance, but he repeatedly took advantage of the boy, including during confession. The boy was also subjected to physical abuse by the school’s head, who caned him so hard on his hand that it bled.
After not telling a soul about the abuse for many years, he finally launched proceedings against the diocesan authority that ran the school. In upholding his claim, a judge was utterly convinced that his account of the abuse was true and accurate.
The judge found that the priest had singled him out and preyed on him because of his vulnerability and need for support. His conduct was an abominable affront to his trusted position as an ordained clergyman. The caning incident was a cruel and excessive exercise of the head’s power over the boy and could never have been regarded as permissible chastisement.
In awarding the man £170,000 in damages, the court noted the terrible toll that the abuse took on his life. His Catholic faith was shaken to the core by what happened and he left school without any qualifications. Despite his average intelligence, his reading and writing abilities remain those of a young child.
He is still suffering from moderately severe post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the abuse, which also contributed to his depressive disorder and his problems with alcohol, which led to the destruction of his marriage.
Psychological as well as physical injury can warrant a personal injury claim. If you have experienced treatment by another person that has caused you emotional or psychological distress, contact us for advice.
To download a Word file of this content, click here
These articles are provided for general interest and information only. They do not constitute legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the content accurately reflects the law in England as at the date of its transmission, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage arising from any act or omission resulting from any information contained herein.