Our client was driving within the speed limit along a familiar country lane in the afternoon.  Suddenly another car failed to give way at a junction and collided with our client’s car.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The road traffic accident was the other driver’s fault because he:-

• drove too fast;
• failed to keep a proper look out;
• failed to give way at a junction;
• failed to notice our client’s car;
• failed to stop, slow down or control his car to avoid the collision;
• breached the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Highway Code.

Our client attended the local hospital after the accident as she suffered from whiplash to her neck and back along with bruising on her arm and hip, headaches and anxiety.

Lawson-West recovered compensation in respect of our client’s whiplash injuries and for expenses incurred as a result of the accident.  Our client approached Lawson-West a month before her limitation period was due to expire and within a period of five months, Lawson-West managed to issue court proceedings, obtain medical evidence and negotiate a settlement before court proceedings were due to be served.  This reflects the timely fashion that this case was dealt with and the fact that, even with a month before limitation was due to expire, it was a case that Lawson West was able to deal with.

Our client was employed as an HGV Driver and was on site to connect a trailer to an HGV which had been reversed onto a platform.  As our client was busy connecting the appropriate wires and checking they were properly connected, the platform lowered by 3 – 6 inches.  Our client was unaware that the platform had been lowered and no warning was given.  As our client went to walk off the platform, he tripped sustaining a knee injury.

Lawson-West solicitors began a personal injury claim.  The tripping accident was the site’s occupier’s fault as they were in breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and negligence in that they:-

• failed to discharge the common duty of care to see our client was reasonably safe in using the premises;
• exposed our client to a foreseeable risk of injury;
• caused, permitted or suffered our client to work in an area when it was not safe to do so;
• failed to take any care for the safety of our client;
• failed to provide or maintain a safe means of access or exit from a place in which our client had to work by failure to ensure the platform would not drop or would not create a trip hazard if it dropped;
• caused, permitted or suffered the platform to lower from the surrounding floor area so creating a hazard;
• failed to ensure the platform would remain level;
• exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.

After the accident our client attended the local hospital where he was found to have injured the ligaments in his right knee.  As a result of the accident, our client had to take nine weeks off work as he could not drive until his injured knee was sufficiently healed.  Lawson-West recovered compensation of just over £5900 in respect of our client’s injuries and loss of earnings for the nine weeks he could not work.

Our client had booked a week’s stay at a hotel with her husband.  She’d booked a double room with an ensuite bathroom.  After a day out, our client returned to her room to have a shower before dinner.  She had plenty of time and was not in a hurry.

In the bathroom there was no bath mat available but a paper towel had been put down on the floor by hotel staff.  The floor was made from lino material.  There was no hand rail to assist visitors to get out of the bath, only a towel rail at the end of the bath.  Our client finished her shower and lifted her left foot over the side of the bath and put it on the paper towel that was acting as a bath mat.  At the same time she rested her hand on the towel rail to steady herself.  The towel rail gave way and the paper towel slipped so our client fell heavily to the floor.

Our client’s husband came to her assistance.  Initially it was thought that the injury sustained to her wrist and arm was a bad sprain.  Our client reported the accident to the hotel staff who arranged for our client to see a doctor the following day and she was sent to the local hospital where it was discovered she actually had a fractured arm.

Lawson-West solicitors began a personal injury claim.  The hotel was in breach of its statutory duties under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 in that it:-

• failed to take reasonable care to ensure our client was safe in using the premises;
• failed to provide suitable bath mats;
• failed to provide a hand rail to help visitors climb in or out of the bath when the hotel should have known this could cause injury;
• failed to ensure the towel rail was securely fixed to the wall;
• failed to ensure the towel rail was strong enough to act as a hand rail as a hand rail had not been provided;
• failed to place any warning signs to advise that the inadequate paper towel might slip;
• failed to place any warning not to use the towel rail as a hand rail.

Our client followed up her visit to the hospital local to her hotel with visits to the hospital nearest to her home for treatment to her arm.  Lawson-West recovered compensation of just under £3000 for our client’s injuries and care received whilst she did not have full use of her arm.  As our client is retired, there was no loss of earnings.

Our client, who had attended a two year college course obtaining NVQ 2 and 3, was employed as a beauty therapist.  She was permitted to carry out eyebrow shaping.  The usual procedure at her employer’s beauty clinic was that the wax required for beauty treatments was kept in pots which were contained in a larger pot which kept the smaller pots at a constant temperature to keep the wax at the right consistency for the job.  The smaller pots were usually checked either after the beauty clinic closed in the evening or first thing in the morning so that sufficient wax at the right temperature and consistency was available for all beauty treatment appointments throughout the working day.

During her employment, our client had not received any induction training or any health and safety training.

Our client arrived at work and knew she had an eyebrow shape appointment half an hour later.  Our client went to the treatment room to prepare for her appointment when she noticed there was insufficient wax in the pots for her to use for her client’s treatment.  Our client went to the stock room to get a fresh wax pot and spoke to a Senior Therapist as she knew the wax pot would not be heated sufficiently in time for the appointment.  The Senior Therapist advised our client to put the pot of wax in the microwave oven for “a minute or two”.  Our client put the wax pot in the microwave for one minute and thirty seconds but checked the pot every twenty seconds or so.  However, the wax still appeared to be hard, even after one and a half minutes.  Intending to stir the wax, our client put a spatula into the wax pot. 

As she did so, the top layer of wax cracked and hot wax splashed onto our client’s hand and forearm.  Our client immediately put her hand under the cold tap and ran cold water on it.  A trained First Aider applied “after wax” cream to our client’s hand and forearm. 

Our client spoke with the owner of the beauty clinic and was advised to put ice on her scalded arm and hand.  Our client said she wanted to go to the local hospital, but no one at the clinic was prepared to accompany our client so she walked to the Accident and Emergency department on her own with a flannel on her arm.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The accident was the employer’s fault because they were in breach of their statutory duties under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and/or Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and/or the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and:-

• failed to undertake an assessment of the risks to our client’s health and safety with regard to the task she was doing;
• failed to ensure our client had suitable personal protective equipment, such as gloves, to protect her;
• failed to ensure our client was given instruction or training so that she understood the risks in the job she was doing;
• failed to provide safe or adequate equipment;
• failed to ensure the wax pots were sufficiently full and prepared before the start of the working day according to the clinic’s own procedures;
• instructed our client to heat the wax in the microwave when it should have been known that it was dangerous to do so;
• failed to provide our client with sufficient warning about how hot the wax would become;
• caused, permitted, required or suffered our client to carry out an unsafe task;
• exposed our client to a foreseeable risk of injury;
• failed to provide a safe system of work for our client;
• failed to provide our client with adequate or appropriate first aid after the accident.

Our client sustained burns to her hand and forearm.  At the hospital she was advised that her hand and forearm should have been wrapped in cling film.  Our client was advised she was at risk of permanent scarring on either her hand or forearm.

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £2420 in general damages for the burns sustained by our client as a result of the accident plus further compensation for loss of earnings, travel and care whilst use of her arm was restricted following the accident.

Our client usually started her work by opening up the offices in the morning, which involved opening the front door shutters.  Normally, once the shutters have been pulled back, the two parts of the runner tracks on the floor have to be lifted up and to the side where they stay in an upright position.  Our client was not aware of any method of securing the tracks into their upright position and was aware that complaints had been made to management about the tracks falling back down instead of staying in an upright position.  These had been recorded in the Accident Report Book.

As usual, our client started to open the front door shutters.  She had lifted the left side of the runner track up and to the side into its upright position, where it was supposed to stay, and bent down to lift the right side of the runner track up.  Suddenly the left side track fell down onto her hand.

The accident was the employer’s fault because they:-

• were in breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957;
• failed to ensure that the work equipment provided was so constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose for which it was provided or used contrary to Regulation 4(1) of the Work Equipment Regulations;
• failed to have regard for working conditions and risks to health and safety of our client which existed when using the work equipment contrary to Regulation 4(2) of the Work Equipment Regulations by e.g. not providing an alternative method of fixing the tracks in place;
• failed to provide appropriate or adequate equipment for the purpose of undertaking the task;
• caused, permitted, required or suffered the continuance of the practice of using the front door shutters when it was unsafe or unsuitable to do so;
• failed to train or instruct our client how to safely undertake her work or otherwise supervise her to see that she undertook it safely;
• caused, permitted, required or suffered our client to carry out a task of work when it was unsafe to do so;
• failed to warn our client of the dangers of working or prevent her from doing so;
• failed to provide or maintain safe equipment;
• failed to take any adequate care for the safety of our client;
• exposed our client to a danger or trap for a foreseeable risk of injury;
• breached Section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and/or the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 in that there was a failure to provide our client with a safe system of work leaving our client to be exposed to unnecessary injury and failure to take reasonable care that she would be safe whilst carrying out her duties;
• breached Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 by not ensuring that any suitable and sufficient risk assessment was carried out regarding the task our client was doing;
• breached Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 by failing to assess the risks of the health and safety of our client whilst working.

As a result of the accident, our client sustained a crush injury to her left hand and wrist.  She attended hospital after the accident.

Lawson-West, solicitors, began a personal injury claim against her employers.  Lawson-West secured compensation of £2500 for general damages in respect of her injuries.  Lawson-West also secured further compensation for travel expenses and care and assistance as our client could not drive until she had recovered from her injury.

Related Articles:-

Jammed Lever on Work Equipment led to Hand Injury

Trip on packaging strap at work caused Broken Arm

Printing caused a Dislocated Knee

Our client was a passenger on a bus which was approaching a busy junction.  The bus driver suddenly veered from the middle lane into the bus lane.  A car was already in the bus lane indicating to turn left.  The bus collided with the car.  Despite properly sitting in her bus seat, our client was jolted forwards, sustaining injury.

Lawson-West, solicitors, began a personal injury claim.  The accident was the bus driver’s fault as the driver had:- 

• driven too fast;
• failed to keep any proper look out for other vehicles;
• failed to stop, slow down or control the bus to avoid the accident;
• failed to notice the car in the bus lane;
• failed to give way to vehicles already in the bus lane;
• breached statutory duties under the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act 1988.

Our client sustained a whiplash injury to her neck and back.  She attended the Accident and Emergency Department of the local hospital after the accident. 

Lawson-West claimed £1913 general damages compensation for her injuries.  As our client was not employed at the time of the accident, she had not lost any earnings.  Lawson-West were also able to arrange the recommended course of physiotherapy and extra compensation for travel to medical appointments and for help from relatives with household chores that our client could not do until her injuries had healed.

Related Articles:-

Rear End Shunted Minibus led to whiplash injuries

Rear End Shunt led to Whiplash and a Write-off

Our client was driving his car when he stopped at a set of red traffic lights.  Suddenly and without warning, our client’s car was rear end shunted by a lorry.  Despite wearing a seatbelt, our client sustained whiplash injuries to his neck and back and suffered pain around his kneecaps.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The accident was the lorry driver’s fault as he:-

• failed to keep a proper look out;
• drove too fast;
• failed to notice our client’s car;
• failed to stop, slow down or control his lorry to avoid the accident;
• failed to notice the traffic lights were red;
• was in breach of the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act 1988.

Our client attended his GP where he was advised he was suffering with high blood pressure as a result of the accident as well as his whiplash injuries.

Lawson-West recovered general damages of £4500 for pain and suffering as a result of injuries sustained in the accident and further compensation for losses and expenses.

Related Articles:-

Rear End Shunt at junction caused back injury

Rear End Shunted Minibus led to whiplash injuries

Rear End Shunted at red traffic lights

Rear End Shunt led to Whiplash and a Write-off

Our client was employed as a Parts Delivery Driver and was walking along a corridor which housed shelving for stationery. As he was walking, he stepped on a white circular strap and his foot got caught in the loop of the strap. He fell forwards on his hands and knees, putting his arms out to try and break his fall. A colleague, who had witnessed the accident, took our client to the office nearby. The accident was recorded in the Accident Book.

The white strap had been removed from a box of paper and, instead of being tidied away, had been left on the floor.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim. Our client had been taken to hospital after the accident where it was discovered he had broken his right arm and injured both of his knees. The accident was the employer’s fault because the employer:-

• failed to comply with The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
• negligently failed to keep corridors free from obstructions which might cause someone to slip, trip or fall and caused the strap to become a danger to our client in breach of Regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
• negligently failed to provide sufficient floor area for the health, safety and welfare of our client at work in breach of Regulation 10 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
• negligently failed to maintain the workplace in an efficient state in breach of Regulation 5 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
• negligently failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of our client to which he was exposed whilst at work in breach of Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
• negligently failed to establish and give appropriate procedures to be followed and to ensure that white straps from stationery boxes are tidied or thrown away and not left lying on the floor in breach of Regulation 8 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
• failed to provide our client with a safe working environment.

Lawson-West secured compensation of £2600 for general damages in respect of our client’s broken arm and knee injuries only.

Our client was riding her bicycle through a village local to her in the morning.  A group of staff from a Ministry of Defence site were walking along the road with a dog who was not on a lead.

Suddenly and without warning, the dog ran into the road, causing a collision and our client fell from her bicycle.  Our client was taken to hospital after the accident.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The accident was the dog handler’s fault because they:-

• failed to have the dog properly trained;
• failed to ensure the dog was on a lead so it could be stopped from running into the road;
• failed to stop the dog running into the road;
• allowed the dog to run into the road without a lead so it was able to collide with and cause injury to road users;
• failed to take any precautions for the safety of other road users or walkers;
• exposed our client to unnecessary risk of injury.

As a result of the accident our client sustained a laceration to her head requiring two stitches, a black eye, bruising, three chipped teeth and a sprain to her shoulder and neck.

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £5,900 for general damages for our client’s injuries, travel and damaged clothing and property.

Related Articles:-

Cyclist knocked from behind as van mounting a footpath

Our client attended a hairdressing salon, having arranged the appointment in advance.  Our client wanted her roots re-touched to match her blonde hair colour.  Her hair was all one length and in very good condition.  As our client travels a lot, she does not have a regular hairdresser and it was her first visit to this particular salon.

The salon owner produced a colour chart and recommended a colour.  Once the colour was agreed, the owner and assistant went through to the back of the salon to mix the colour.  The owner advised the assistant to put the dye on our client’s roots and then on the remainder of her hair, i.e. covering hair that had already been coloured when our client simply wanted her roots re-touching.  The colour applied was an eggshell white with green tint rather than the purple colour she was more used to.  However, it was her first visit to this salon and she assumed a different product was being used.  The salon did not advise our client how long the treatment would last.

After half an hour, our client’s hair was washed.  Our client went through to the main salon to have her hair cut.  The assistant dried our client’s hair.  Our client could see that her hair was a green colour and queried it.  The salon owner advised it simply needed conditioning treatment.  The owner went to the back of the salon and advised our client that the conditioning treatment was being applied.  When our client asked what colour her hair would be after further treatment, she was advised “the same as before.”  Our client was also advised that her hair would be in better condition than before.

The assistant was instructed to comb the conditioning treatment through and to scrub at our client’s hair to ensure the colour penetrated her hair.  When our client asked why her hair had turned green, she was told that it was her own fault because of the colour she’d used previously.  After 30 – 40 minutes the second treatment was washed off.  The owner then started cutting our client’s hair.  Not happy with the way it was being cut, our client asked the owner to stop.  She asked him to stop at least five times.  The owner did not stop until our client stood up.

Our client was left with very dry and unconditioned hair, with layers approximately 6 cm in length.  Her hair was left with weak spots on the hair shaft, and frayed ends.  It had also been dyed brown when our client was very specific about wanting her hair to be blonde to match the existing colour. 

The damage to our client’s hair was caused by the hairdresser’s negligence in that they:

·         failed to carry out a strand test,

·         failed to carry out a skin test and failure to check that our client was not at risk of an allergic reaction,

·         failed to carry out a porosity test,

·         failed to employ suitably competent, qualified hairdressers to carry out the colouring process,

·         left the solution on for too long,

·         failed to carry out regular checks on the hair whilst the solution was on it.

The salon denied liability.  The owner claimed that our client had wanted her hair to be a “rich chocolate brunette”, denied that our client’s hair turned green and said he’d used a feathering technique and point cutting and club cutting when cutting our client’s hair.  Our client’s appointment and record card did not show which product had been used.

A specialist trichologist’s report found that the hairdressing salon had not used the permanent dye correctly.  The dye used should not have been applied to the full head, i.e. from root to point of her hair as this subjected the previously treated hair to the incorrect colour.  A conditioner would not have any impact on the colouring used, so the second application was a dye to correct the first, incorrect application of dye.  As our client was visiting the salon for the first time, she should have had a strand test.  Once the hairdresser was made aware that the hair was an unwanted colour, they should have stopped work and performed a strand test, asking our client to return after 24 hours.

Our client’s job involves her being in daily contact with clients so her appearance, as a representative of her employer, needed to be smart.  Our client had to wait 12 months for the green/brown colours to grow out before any correctional colours could be put in her hair.

After further negotiations, Lawson-West secured compensation of £2750 in respect of the damage to our client’s hair.