PIBULJ
Josie Lawrence v. Kent County Council [2012] EWCA Civ 493 - Daniel Tobin, 12 King’s Bench Walk
28/05/12. The Claimant was an elderly lady who tripped on a raised manhole cover. The evidence at trial was that the cover was raised by between 10 and 15mm. Kent County Council ('KCC') was the relevant highway authority in respect of the section of footway upon which the Claimant suffered her accident. KCC operated a highways safety inspection regime, whereunder they defined 'actionable' footway defects as those which exceeded 20mm in depth.
In respect of defects requiring a repair, KCC's system had three levels of response time: 2 hours, 3 days and those that got actioned when an opportunity arose, which was usually a few days longer than the others. Following the report of the Claimant's accident, Mr Cunningham, KCC's surveyor, inspected the defect and concluded that although it measured less than the 20mm intervention level, it should be seen to and he issued a "make safe" order, which resulted in it being repaired. He explained at trial that the make safe order was an item of general maintenance work and that these are works which get done amongst other repairs of various defects which are not deemed dangerous. He said he did it as a matter of 'customer care' and not because it needed to be done.
The Claimant's daughter examined and photographed the defect within a few days of her mother's accident and her evidence at trial was that she thought it should be repaired.
The Claimant brought a claim against KCC, alleging that her fall was caused by its breach of Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 ('the 1980 Act').
The trial was heard in November 2010 before HHJ Craddick at Maidstone County Court. Quantum was agreed, subject to liability, in the sum of £5,000. HHJ Craddick, having reminded himself of the test of danger in the leading case of Mills v. Barnsley MBC (1992) PIQR P291, found that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/yuriz
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Editorial: The Irresistible Force and the Immovable Object - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
24/05/12. In Armstrong and Connor v First York (2005) EWCA Civ 277, which will be familiar as a leading authority on low velocity impact cases, the trial Judge was confronted by two apparently truthful claimants, who said that they had suffered an injury, and an apparently convincing expert, who concluded that they could not have suffered an injury. The irresistible force met the immovable object. The claimants and the expert could not both be correct and the Court was therefore forced to choose between them.
It is easy to assume that in such a case the expert...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/liveostockimages
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
When is an Offer Not an Offer? - Sarah Prager, 1 Chancery Lane
23/05/12. The Court of Appeal has recently explored whether, and to what extent, offers must be made in accordance with the provisions of CPR Part 36 if they are to have the consequences set out in that Rule. Sarah Prager explores the ramifications of the decision in PHI Group Limited v Robert West Consulting Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 588.
The claim
The claim arose out of works undertaken by Carillion JM Ltd. It was the main contractor engaged to carry out the design and construction of a train servicing depot to the west of the Wembley Football Stadium between 2004 and 2006. The appellant, PHI, was the specialist design and build contractor for what was called...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
When does fear become phobia? Diagnosing a Specific Phobia of car travel. - Dr Kathryn Newns
21/05/12. About one-fifth of individuals involved in a road traffic accident (RTA) develop acute stress reaction; out of this subgroup, 10% go on to develop a mood disorder, 11% develop post-traumatic stress disorder, and 20% develop phobic travel anxiety. (Mayou et al., 1997).
It is relatively common, following an RTA, for an individual to develop some degree of anxiety regarding car travel. An expert witness with a background in clinical psychology is often tasked with determining whether the anxiety reaction is:
. A phobia of car travel (Specific Phobia. DSM.IV 300.29)
. A milder anxiety reaction, meeting the diagnostic criteria for a mild phobia
. A normal (non-clinically significant) reaction
For a condition to be considered a phobia, the fear must involve a...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/joyt
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Whitehall Whiplash Discussions - Susan Brown, Prolegal
15/05/12. Insurers and the government met again at this month at a much heralded Whitehall summit to discuss, amongst other things, whiplash claims. They seem to be going round in ever decreasing circles. The headlines suggest it is an accepted fact that insurance premiums are £90 higher because of bogus whiplash claims. This strikes me as highly unlikely. There is of course fraud in this area as in any other type of insurance claim, but if insurers were paying out at that level, it would suggest a ludicrous level of incompetence on the part of insurance companies in vetting the claims. No-one actually knows the level of fraud, and insurers, as a suspicious bunch, probably...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/angelhell
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
