By definition, contributory negligence can only come into play where your claim is going to be successful. The insurance company dealing with the claim will have accepted 'primary' liability and, in doing so, they accept they have to pay you some compensation. However, they want to restrict how much they have to pay to you and contributory negligence is one way they can try to do that. It means they are saying the accident or the injuries you have suffered were partly due to your own fault. This could be because: you did not take proper care when crossing the road and that was part of the reason for you being knocked down; you tripped over something you ought to have seen, if you had been taking reasonable care; you did not wear a hard hat on a construction site and you were more seriously injured than you would have been otherwise when something fell on your head; or as per the photograph at the top of this article, you were injured due to Continue Reading
Donoghue –v- Stevenson: the world’s modern law of negligence is born in Scotland
If you have an accident claim in Scotland, it is covered by the Law of Delict. In England, it is known as the Law of Torts. The modern law of Delict – covering the duties people owe to others not to cause them injury - can be traced to a particular case, arising from an incident which occurred in Paisley on Sunday, 26 August 1928. The case of Donoghue –v- Stevenson is widely known in legal circles, not just in Scotland and the UK but throughout the world, as the source of the modern law of negligence. A night out in Paisley On the evening in question, May Donoghue, at that time a 30-year-old shop assistant, boarded a tram in Glasgow for the thirty-minute journey to Paisley. At around 8.50pm, she and a female friend took their seats in the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley’s Wellmeadow Place. The café owner, Francis Minchella, took the order and May's friend ordered, and paid for, a pear and ice, and an ice-cream 'float'. Mr Minchella brought the order and poured part of Continue Reading
Child car seats: another reason to make sure it’s the right one
It’s bad enough to be involved in a road traffic accident in which someone is injured ... ... but it is even worse if that person is a young child. As a parent, you will find it difficult to come to terms with an injury to your child even if the accident was not your fault. What follows is the facts of a case from 2012 where a mother – who was driving the vehicle in which her injured child was a passenger – was not responsible for the accident at all but was still found to be partly responsible for her child’s injury. In this accident, there was a collision between two cars near Wrexham, North Wales. The driver of the other car lost control of his vehicle and it crossed to the wrong side of the road. There was nothing Louise Williams could do to avoid the crash. The driver of the other car was killed. Ms Williams’ daughter, Emma, aged three, was seriously injured. In the back of Ms Williams’ car, there were two child seats. One was a child seat fitted with a harness (for Continue Reading
Your personal injury claim solicitor: the difference between winning and losing?
Terence Connelly suffered a serious injury to his arm. He fell while playing tennis on a carpeted court at a leisure centre in Renfrew. One of his feet got stuck in the surface and he fell heavily. It appears that he had on the wrong kind of tennis shoes. It turned out there was a special type of shoes he should have been wearing, though he did not know that at the time. Mr Connelly made a personal injury claim against the leisure centre. He pointed to the fact that, following the accident, signs were put up at the centre stating: “Non-marking smooth-soled tennis shoes on carpet courts”. His action was unsuccessful in the Sheriff Court before first the Sheriff and then on appeal to the Sheriff Principal. He further appealed to the Court of Session but that appeal also failed. He conducted all three hearings in the case himself. In essence, the claim was unsuccessful because the various judges did not feel able to say that, on the available evidence at the date of the Continue Reading
