PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This case considered whether the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims applied to a claim brought by the claimant against her employer, arising out of an injury she sustained when she was pushed by an elderly patient. The case ultimately settled for £16,500. The claimant argued that the case was unsuitable for the Protocol because (1) it was reasonably valued in excess of £25,000 and (2) it was a claim which fell under the exception in paragraph 4.3(8), which read ‘this Protocol does not apply to a claim—for damages in relation to harm, abuse or neglect of or by children or vulnerable adults’. The Costs Judge found: (1) It was reasonable for the claimant to value the claim in excess of £25,000; (2) The case did not fall within paragraph 4.3(8) because the action did not constitute ‘harm, abuse or neglect’. The claim was...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Psychiatric injury—secondary victims—case trackerThis case tracker reviews the case law which has been decided since the lead case of Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police in 1991. Subsequent case law developed the concept of secondary victims and explored the extent that courts would allow
Can a claimant claim for loss of enjoyment of a holiday or activity as a result of an injury sustained in a road traffic accident. If so, how is this loss quantified?Claims can be raised for loss of enjoyment of a holiday or an activity and falls under the category of a non-pecuniary loss, as the
The employer’s duty of careThis Practice Note considers the scope of an employer’s common law duty to ensure the safety of their employees with specific reference to the duty to provide safe premises, plant, system of working and staff. This Practice Note also considers the Enterprise and Regulatory
Defences to a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987Limitation or exclusion of liability for defective products in any contract term, notice or other provision is prohibited.Defences to a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) fall into four main categories:•the injured person
0330 161 1234