Pedestrian injury Claims

Pedestrian injury claims enable you to recover compensation when you have been injured in the street due to the carelessness of somebody or some authority who owed you a duty of care. Claims for pedestrian injury compensation should take into account the effect an injury has on your quality of life in addition to any physical pain you have suffered and emotional trauma you have experienced in the pedestrian accident, and you should also be able to claim any expenses you have incurred which are attributable to your pedestrian accident in order that you are no worse off financially than if your pedestrian accident had never occurred. Make sure you receive comprehensive advice about making pedestrian injury claims by discussing the circumstances of your accident with an experienced solicitor on our freephone Solicitors Advice Panel.

Court Settles Claim for Fall on Ice

March 31st, 2016 | By injuryclaims

A five-figure settlement of compensation has been awarded to a woman who slipped and fell on ice outside of her church by the Belfast High Court. 

The accident occurred in December 2010, when Angela McCluskey – aged sixty-six – injured herself after slipping on ice outside of Armagh’s St Malachy Chapel. She was attending the church to light a candle for the anniversary of her niece’s death, but fell as she arrived. Angela – a retired dinner lady and hospital cleaner – was taken to hospital, where surgery was performed to help repair her ligament damage and a dislocated knee. 

As she recovered, Angela sought legal counsel before proceeding to make a claim for compensation against St Patrick’s Archdiocesan Trust, who are responsible for the safety of the visitors to St Malachy’s Chapel. However, liability for Angela’s accident and injuries was denied by the trust, who claim that they had applied salt to the area in which Angela fell the night before her accident. 

The claim for compensation proceeded to the High Court in Belfast. The hearing was overseen by Mrs Justice Siobhan Keegan, who was informed that at the time of Angela’s accident, no formal system was employed by St Patrick’s Archdiocesan Trust to manage church property, though that the church was doing its best under the harsh weather conditions in the period. 

Judge Keegan found in Angela’s favour, claiming that the path should have been checked for hazards that morning, even if it had been salted. 

Judge Keegan commented that “In my view the risk was clearly foreseeable considering the extreme weather at the time… The defendant knew about the bad weather conditions and in my view had the ability to take precautions to protect visitors to their premises. I consider that this incident was preventable by measures such as warning signs, closing a gate, directing pedestrians to a safe path, creating one dedicated path, [and] salting/gritting the dangerous area”.

The judge dismissed any allegations of contributory negligence on Angela’s part before awarding her £60,000 in compensation for her injuries. 

Woman Seeking Compensation for a Fall on a Cracked Pavement

May 4th, 2015 | By injuryclaims

A woman is seeking compensation for a fall on a cracked pavement which resulted in her needing hospital treatment for leg, knee and head injuries.

Gwendoline Smith (76) from Noak Bridge in Essex sustained her injuries when getting off of a bus on which she had travelled to Southend. Gwendoline – who is partly disabled and uses crutches for support – tripped and fell over the raised edge of a cracked pavement on Bournemouth Park Road.

Gwendoline was taken to Southend Hospital, where she received treatment for a suspected broken knee. She has subsequently had to attend the nearby Basildon Hospital due to ongoing headaches and bumps appearing on her head.

The fall on the cracked pavement has left Gwendoline with pains in her back, her left shoulder and left leg, and she has also temporarily lost her voice. According to her son – Michael – Gwendoline should be entitled to compensation for a fall on a cracked pavement.

A spokesman for Southend Council said: “We regularly inspect all pavements in the borough and repair any dangerous defects as a matter of priority. We have not had any reports of problems in this area, but of course, we take matters like this seriously and a member of our Environmental Care team will visit the site and inspect the area”.

Claims for compensation for a fall on a cracked pavement are particularly complicated. The “one-inch rule” (by which the lip of a broken pavement must be raised) before it is possible to make injury claims for trips and falls is a myth, and courts are more concerned about the risk of injury presented by a particular hazard.

In 1978 (in Pitman vs. Southern Electricity Board) a court found in favour of a woman who had tripped over a metal plate just one eighth of an inch thick, and the location of the cracked pavement – immediately by a bus stop – may help towards the success of Gwendoline´s claim for compensation for a fall on a cracked pavement.

However, Southend Council does not have an “absolute” duty of care to identify and repair hazards such as cracked pavements. If the crack had only recently appeared and the council not had a “reasonable” amount of time to repair or isolate the hazard, Gwendoline may not be entitled to compensation for a fall on a cracked pavement.

Compensation for Bull Terrier Attack Awarded to Bite Victim

July 1st, 2014 | By injuryclaims

A settlement of £15,000 compensation for a bull terrier attacked has been negotiated for a woman who sustained dog bite injuries when trying to prevent her own dogs from being injured.

Rebecca Lambert (41) was walking her two small dogs on a public footpath alongside Lilly Hall Road in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, when a bull terrier – being walked off its lead – approached from the opposite direction.

The owner of the bull terrier called out a warning that his dog was aggressive but, before Rebecca could pick up her dogs, the bull terrier had attacked her puggle pup. Rebecca tried to stop the attack, but suffered lacerations, cuts and punctures to her thighs, face and hands from the frenzied bull terrier.

The attacked lasted a terrifying 15 minutes, and was only brought to a stop with the assistance of passers-by. The police and an ambulance were called, and the pup was taken to the vets for emergency surgery.

The owner of the bull terrier fled the scene of the attack before the police arrived, but was identified after an investigation and prosecuted under the Animals Act 1971. The bull terrier was put down and, after seeking legal advice, Rebecca claimed compensation for the bull terrier attack against the owner.

In her claim for bull terrier attack compensation, Rebecca alleged that the owner knew that the dog was an aggressive breed, failed to restrain it or prevent it from causing an injury. Liability was acknowledged, and a £15,000 settlement of compensation for the bull terrier attack negotiated.

Rebecca´s solicitor commented after her claim had been resolved that approximately 6,000 people are injured each year by dog attacks, but few victims make claims for compensation because they are not aware that they can.

Procedural Changes Aim to Speed up Personal Injury Compensation Settlements

August 3rd, 2013 | By injuryclaims

New procedures introduced on the 1st August should speed up personal injury compensation settlements for claims with a value of less than £25,000.

In April 2013, several changes to the way in which personal injury claims were handled were introduced following the passing of the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO). The most noticeable of these changes affected “No Win, No Fee” injury claims, and how “After the Event” insurance premiums and solicitors´ “Success Fees” could no longer be recovered from the negligent party´s insurance company; however the most recent changes have been designed to reduce the length of time it takes to resolve claims and make sure that claimants receive their personal injury compensation settlements quicker.

The primary changes concern how long a negligent party´s insurance company has to acknowledge and respond to a “Letter of Claim”. Whereas before an insurance company could take up to three weeks to acknowledge that a “Letter of Claim” had been sent to them, they now have to do this within one day. Furthermore, insurance companies are now required to inform your solicitor whether or not their client agrees they were responsible for your injuries within thirty days (forty days for accidents at work). Previously, insurance companies could waste ninety days before admitting their policyholder´s negligence, even when their client had already admitted responsibility for causing an accident.

Insurance companies who fail to adhere to the new procedures for personal injury compensation settlements will have the claim for personal injury compensation removed from the Ministry of Justice´s Claims Portal and have to pay the additional costs of defending the claim using the course of action, unless the claim falls into one of the following categories:-

  • Public liability claims for compensation against an individual
  • Employer liability claims against more than one defendant
  • Any personal injury compensation claims in which the claimant is partly responsible
  • Public liability claims relating to a disease (for example food poisoning)
  • Claims involving mesothelioma, abuse or medical negligence
  • Claims against a party who is uninsured

The procedural changes apply to claims for injuries which have been sustained or diagnosed in England or Wales on or after 1st August 2013 , and have no effect on the Statute of Limitations – the length of time you are allowed after an injury has been sustained or discovered in which to claim personal injury compensation.

Should you require further information about personal injury compensation settlements, and how the changes to the personal injury claims procedures may affect you in your specific situation, you are advised to speak with a solicitor at the first practical moment.

Man Awarded Cyclist Injury Compensation for Fall in Pothole

March 16th, 2012 | By injuryclaims

A man, who sustained arm and wrist injuries after falling from his bicycle when hitting a pothole in the road, has won his claim for cyclist injury compensation against his local council.

James Tarrant, aged 62, from Windsor, Buckinghamshire, was cycling to work early one morning in October 2008 when his bicycle fell into a pothole which had formed adjacent to a manhole cover on Bangor Road, Iver. In addition to experiencing arm and wrist injuries, James also had to undergo dental treatment to have a tooth extracted as a result of his accident.

After seeking legal advice, James made a fell in pothole compensation claim against Buckinghamshire County Council, claiming that the road was in a bad state of disrepair and, although he had his bicycle lights on, the road was so poorly lit that he only saw the hazard when it was too late to take evasive action.

After their own examination of the incident, Buckinghamshire County Council admitted liability for James´ injuries and awarded him 4,191 pounds for cyclist fall in pothole compensation to account for his pain and suffering and the cost of dental treatment.

Wrongful Death Injury Claims Action see £500k award

February 27th, 2012 | By injuryclaims

The family of a man who died in hospital due to “an unjustifiable delay” in his treatment have received an apology from the hospital in question and £400,000 compensation in settlement of their wrongful death claims action.

Barry Murphy (38), was known to suffer from Crohn´s Disease – despite being generally in good health – when he was admitted to the South Infirmary–Victoria University Hospital on the morning of 24th April 2008 complaining of abdominal pains. Barry was diagnosed with a perforated bowl but, by the time the hospital performed the operation, parts of his body had already shut down due to septic shock and he died at 11.15pm the same evening.

Barry´s widow, Mary, stated that the hospital had not cared for her husband by failing to operate on him in time, and that they were guilty of medical negligence in the avoidable and wrongful death of her husband. The hospital initially argued the claims, but in court apologised to the family and admitted that the level of care that was provided for Barry fell short of an acceptable standard.

The apology and admission of liability for Mary Murphy´s wrongful death injury claims action was accompanied with an offer of compensation for delayed treatment amounting to £400,000. Mr Justice John Quirke approved the settlement, once he had Mary Murphy´s agreement that it was amenable, and extended his sympathies to Mary and her two daughters – commenting that what had happened to Barry was “unthinkable” and “tragic”.

Woman Receives Compensation in Hit and Run Injury Claims Case

February 24th, 2012 | By injuryclaims

A woman from Dublin, whose arm was broken when a car reversed over her after she had slipped and fallen, has been awarded 79,000 Euros in compensation for hit and run injury claims case by Dublin´s High Court.

Siofra O´Loughlin (24) from Rolestown, Dublin, had been playing with friends on Dollymount Beach in July 2006, when she slipped on wet sand trying to catch a ball. When she was laying face down on the ground, a motorist reversed back over her – causing Siofra to sustain injuries to her upper arm and back.

According to the evidence Siofra and her friends gave the Gardai, the motorist stopped a short distance from where the accident had taken place, looked back at Siofra laying in agony on the ground, got back into his car and drove away. Siofra was treated at the scene for her injuries and then taken to hospital where it was discovered that her humerus bone was fractured and there were significant abrasions to her back.

As the driver of the car was never traced, Siofra made a compensation claim for hit and run injuries to the Motor Insurers´ Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) – the organisation funded by the car insurance industry to provide personal injury compensation to victims of road traffic accidents in which the negligent party is either uninsured or unable to be traced.

The Motorist Insurers´ Bureau of Ireland contested Siofra´s injury claim for compensation for hit and run – alleging that there had been a different version of events reported to the Gardai. Despite this Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill at the High Court is Dublin dismissed their claims and awarded Siofra 79,000 Euros in compensation for hit and run injuries – stating that he believed Siofra´s version of events as they had been presented in court.

Child Injury Claims Compensation for Tripping on Pavement

February 9th, 2012 | By injuryclaims

A twelve year old girl has been awarded 20,000 Euros in Dublin´s Circuit Civil Court as child injury claims compensation for tripping on pavement and sustaining a permanent scar from her accident.

Kodie Geoghegan Dowdall, from Ballymun in Dublin, was just seven years of age when the accident occurred in December 2006 as she was going to visit her aunt who lived close by. Passing by a building site managed by SIAC Construction of Clondalkin, Dublin, Kodie tripped and fell into a hole dug by the construction company.

Kodie suffered cuts and bruises in the accident, one of which grew into a permanent scar. Through her mother, Kodie brought a tripped on pavement compensation claim against SIAC Construction and, although they denied liability for her injuries, an offer of compensation for tripping on pavement was made with no admission of liability.

In the Circuit Civil Court, Mr Justice Matthew Deery heard that the proposed settlement was enough to restructure the scar when Kodie turns eighteen years of age and, as all compensation settlements for minors in Ireland have to be endorsed by a judge, Mr Justice Matthew Deery approved the compensation for tripping on pavement agreement.

Bigger Injury Claims Bigger Injury Claims
Bigger Injury Claims Bigger Injury Claims

Discuss your options with an
experienced US lawyer
without obligation or pressure.

Bigger Injury Claims

Enter your name, number and a
convenient time for us to call you
back, then click the button below

Bigger Injury Claims
Bigger Injury Claims
Bigger Injury Claims

What exactly is
No Win - No fee?

No Win-No Fee is an expression that is
used a lot by many legal sites but how
does it work? We have written a
comprehensive article about it to clear
up any confusion. [Read More]