Faulty supermarket bag leads to fractured toe

Our client visited a local supermarket in order to buy two bottles of sparkling wine. At the till, a supermarket employee put the two bottles into a plastic bag. When our client picked the bag up, both bottles fell through the bottom and landed on her big toe, causing a fracture.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim. The accident was caused by the supermarket’s negligence/breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957  in that they:-

a)         caused or permitted the plastic carrier bag to be or to become or to remain in a defective or a dangerous condition;

b)         failed to carry out an examination of the plastic carrier bag to ensure that it was not faulty and was fit for the purpose for which it was intended;

c)         loaded the plastic carrier bag with two heavy bottles of wine and failed to ensure that the plastic carrier bag could hold the weight;

d)         exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.

After the accident our client attended the hospital. Lawson-West recovered compensation of £3,000 for the injuries she suffered.

Knocked ladder falls on customer in DIY store

Our client was being served in a DIY store when a passing member of staff accidentally knocked a set of metal ladders which had been propped up nearby. The ladders fell down onto the back of our client’s leg.

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim. The accident was the fault of the DIY store because they:

a)         failed to store the metal ladders in an appropriate position to ensure that they were secure and would not fall down if they were knocked;

b)         failed to put the ladders away from an area where customers were present and where there was a risk of them being knocked and falling;

c)         exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury;

d)          failed to keep the shop floor free from items that could fall and cause personal injury.

The employee who knocked the ladders was also at fault in that they:

i)                    failed to see the ladders;

ii)                   knocked the ladders causing them to fall onto our client;

iii)         failed to warn our client of the ladders falling.

As a result of the accident our client sustained a cut, bruising and soft tissue injuries to her leg.  Lawson-West recovered £1763 in compensation for the injuries received.

Corby Borough Council agrees to pay Injury Compensation despite not accepting liability

In an earlier blog article we reported that Corby Borough Council was planning to appeal against a ruling that it was liable for public nuisance, i.e. unlawfully allowing toxic materials to escape in breach of its duty of care. 

Corby Borough Council was responsible for cleaning up an industrial site, but a Judge found it had done so negligently and allowed toxic materials to escape.  Pregnant women who had been exposed to the chemicals had children who suffered birth defects, including missing fingers and/or toes and deformed limbs.  Corby Borough Council planned to appeal against the ruling and if the appeal had been successful, the children who had suffered birth defects would not have received compensation.

The Council have now dropped their challenge.  Although Corby Borough Council refuses to accept liability, it has agreed compensation will be paid to 19 of the families involved, agreeing to include three families who were not involved in the original court decision.  The details of the compensation offered will be kept confidential and for the younger children compensation will be agreed at court in an infant settlement hearing.  This decision by the Council means the families can be compensated for the children’s injuries and the extra costs of caring for their injured children.

Highway authorities have a duty of care to drivers who make common mistakes

In the case of Russell v West Sussex County Council, the Court found that a highway authority must maintain roads so that they are free of danger to all users including drivers who make common mistakes.

West Sussex County Council was responsible for maintaining a section of road with a verge to one side.  The verge had been used as a lay-by by local anglers and the level of the verge had dropped off so its level varied from approximately 4 – 12” and some parts of the drop off were sheer from the road.  A road traffic collision unit officer considered the height of the drop off was a significant, potential hazard to any vehicle on the edge of the road.  The council had conceded that the verge was part of the highway and so the council were obliged to maintain it under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.

A driver was travelling along the road at around 45 mph.  Although it was a 60 mph zone, the driver admitted she was driving too fast as there had been a frost and the temperature was around freezing, so there was a risk of black ice.  The driver skidded, causing one or both wheels on her nearside to leave the road onto the verge.  In order to get back on the road, the driver steered hard left but overcompensated and hit a tree, causing serious injury.  She admitted contributory negligence but argued that the council had a duty to maintain the verge which it had not done.

After the accident, the council raised the verge to the level of the road and took steps to prevent parking on it.  The Court found the driver was 50% contributory negligent, which meant her accident compensation was reduced by 50%.  The council appealed, however, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Corby Borough Council to appeal against ruling of liability for birth defects

Corby Borough Council has announced that it will appeal over a finding that it was liable for a public nuisance, i.e. unlawfully allowing the escape of toxic materials so endangering the health of the public, and in breach of its duty of care under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

In 1985 Corby Borough Council bought the site of a former steelworks and began a clean up operation.  The site had contaminated waste and the council’s auditor found the clean up was “incompetent”.  The waste was loaded into open, uncovered trucks and dumped in ground near what is now a speedway track.  Contaminated sludge was often left on the roadside.  Local residents remember having to clean up dust from the waste and local businesses had to clean up after workmen used their premises.

A cluster of children were born with birth defects in the area between 1989 and 1999.  Doctors noticed that the incidences of birth defects were 10 times higher than would normally be expected in a town of Corby’s population.  Birth defects include deformed arms, hands or feet, missing fingers or toes, stunted fingers or thumbs or toes, some children were born without bones in fingers or thumbs or toes and some will lose use of the affected limb as they grow up.

Initially 16 families claimed compensation from Corby Borough Council for their injuries and to cover costs of care both throughout their childhoods and in the future.  It is believed up to 60 more families may come forward to claim compensation.  Before claiming any compensation, the families had to be able to show that the birth defects were caused by contaminants from the former steelworks site and that Corby Borough Council was negligent in failing to take proper precautions and safeguards when cleaning the site.  It was not necessary to show that the council should have reasonably foreseen that birth defects would result, but that the council should have been aware that harm or damage might be caused to developing babies carried by pregnant women.

An internal council report suggested that residents may have been exposed to high levels of zinc, arsenic, boron and nickel as a result of the reclamation works.  Lawyers, acting on behalf of the families, claimed that mothers had been exposed to “an atmospheric soup of toxic materials” whilst pregnant.

The Judge accepted that Corby Borough Council had been extensively negligent in its control and management of the site of the former steelworks.  He accepted evidence from experts that the council had failed to regulate and control reclamation and was therefore liable for public nuisance and had breached its duty of care under the Environmental Protection Act.

Even if the council was not appealing the decision of liability, this would have been only the first step in a long battle for compensation for the families involved. 

If the council had accepted liability, then each family could have to claim compensation for each individual child affected.  The families would have to show that each mother was in contact with the pollution from the contaminated site and that this had directly caused the birth defects in her child or each of her children.  If the court is satisfied that the birth defects were caused by the contamination, then compensation for each child would be set individually depending on the severity of the defects and the impact of those defects on a child’s life.  A child with severe defects who will not be able to work when reaching adulthood will receive significantly more compensation that a child with a less severe defect who would be expected to work in the future.

However, these families now have to wait the outcome of Corby Borough Council’s appeal.  If Corby Borough Council is found not to be liable, then the families will not get any compensation.