Passengers who were injured when their cruise ship went through a freak storm have called for compensation to be paid.
Amazing footage has just come to light via the Liveleaks website of a P&O Cruise ship being hit by freak waves. The CCTV footage was taken back in July 2008 as the Pacific cruise liner was sailing 400 miles off the coast of New Zealand.
The ship was caught in a freak storm and hit by waves that reached as high as the fifth deck. Many passengers were just settling down to dinner at the time, and footage shows passengers and furniture being thrown around wildly and dangerously.
Forty two passengers were injured in the incident and suffered injuries such as fractured knees, broken ribs, broken hips, pelvis and collar bones. One passenger – Lisa Dolan – suffered a ruptured kidney as well as broken ribs after being hit by an unsecured trolley. She is calling for compensation after suffering the serious injuries and having to spend time in hospital recovering. P&O have so far offered disgruntled passengers a 25% discount on a future cruise.
A spokesperson for the company stated that such incidents are extremely rare and steps have been taken to improve the situation if a similar event should occur in the future. This includes securing tables and other furniture to the floor.
A new report published today by the TUC has revealed the shocking extent of poor standards of safety and health amongst workers in the UK.
Amongst the shocking statistics is the fact that 20,000 people a year are reportedly killed prematurely by their job. This figure encompasses fatal work accidents and fatal diseases caused by exposure to harmful substances at work (e.g. lung cancer from asbestos exposure). As the TUC points out, this 20,000 matches the entire population of the Orkney Islands.
Although the figure of 20,000 is an awful lot, the number of injuries sustained at work is truly staggering. 246,000 workers were injured while performing their job (figure from the Health and Safety Executive).
Just as shocking, are the figures released about illnesses caused by work. A total of 1.2 million people are suffering from illnesses that they believed were caused directly by their job and workplace environment. These illnesses can vary wildly from stress and neck pain to heart disease and depression.
The TUC is using these figures to highlight that despite claims to the contrary, the UK workplace as a whole can still be a dangerous and unhealthy place. They are amongst other things calling on the government to ignore calls to reduce ‘red tape’ and enforcement of health and safety regulations.
The sad truth is that many accidents at work are easily preventable if correct health and safety procedures are followed. If they are not and someone has become injured as a result, then they are usually eligible to make a compensation claim.
A young girl was seriously injured in an accident at a Newcastle museum which has led to the council being fined.
The unnamed five year old girl was involved in the accident at the Discovery Museum in Newcastle, while looking at the “Floating on Air” exhibit in August last year with her family. The exhibit was part of a series which were attempting to explain the basic laws of physics to children in a fun interactive way.
Unfortunately, one of the hoses on the exhibit had been removed for repair, leaving a hole in which the girl put her hand. The hole led to rotating fan blades used to push air through the exhibit. The girl’s hand came into contact with the fan blades and caused her serious injury.
She needed three operations to keep the use of her fingers on her hand, undergoing procedures such as skin grafts and tendon replacement. Two of her fingers are still bent and scarred and she has been unable to take part in healthy childhood activities such as swimming and gymnastics.
The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Newcastle City Council – the operators of the museum – as the hole should have been covered with a safety guard. This guard would easily have prevented any accident and injury from occurring. They pleaded guilty to breaking health and safety regulations and were fined £12,000.
It is unclear whether or not her parents have made a child accident claim for compensation on the girl’s behalf yet.
A teenage girl who tripped in the school playground as a young child and suffered a serious head injury is making a claim for compensation.
Natasha Caley-Winbourne was just a six year old girl at St Peters Primary School in Sussex when the accident occurred. She was playing on a grass bank at the school when she allegedly tripped and fell after her foot got caught in a hole on the bank. The fall caused her to hit her head on the concrete playground next to the grass and she suffered serious injury.
The Telegraph newspaper is reporting that the head injury caused her many difficulties, such as severe headaches, post traumatic amnesia and violent mood swings. She had to undergo specialist treatment for a personality disorder and make regular visits to Great Ormond Street Hospital.
Now 17 years old, Natasha – with the help of her mum – is making a child head injury claim for compensation. Unlike for adults, who have three years from an accident to make a claim, children have three years from their eighteenth birthday to seek compensation. Alternatively, a parent can make a claim on their behalf anytime up to their eighteenth birthday. This is to protect children from missing out on their legal rights, and to allow plenty of time to fully assess the effect and damage of injuries sustained.
Natasha is seeking between £50,000 and £100,000 in damages from the council, who her legal team claim were negligent and failed in their duty of protecting her safety. The council is denying liability and the case will be decided at a later date.
A worker has suffered a devastating burn injury after an explosion in his workplace.
The unnamed 33 year old man was working as a welder for Fluorocarbon Bakeware Systems Ltd. at the time of the accident. He was cutting metal for use in industrial bakeware manufacture, when a spark from the metal caused a dreadful incident. The spark ignited flammable fumes from a can of thinner and it exploded. The worker was covered in the exploding liquid and suffered 60% burns to his body.
The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Fluorocarbon Bakeware Systems Ltd for the accident. This was because an investigation found that there was no adequate provision for the safe storage of thinners and flammable materials in this area of the site. This should have been provided by a dedicated storage area well away from the work section. The HSE also discovered that a risk assessment had not taken place about the workshop working activities.
The company pleaded guilty at a Nottingham court to breaking Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. They were fined £10,000 and made to pay legal costs of over £5,000.
A spokesperson for the HSE stated that the accident was easily preventable if a few simple procedures had been followed.
It is unclear whether the worker has made a burn injury compensation claim against his employers or not.
A group of passengers who suffered injuries after coming too close to an iceberg are making compensation claims against the tour company who operated the cruise.
The accident happened on a 10 day sightseeing adventure cruise around the Arctic – more specifically Spitzbergen and the Svalbard islands in Noway – in August 2007. The boat pulled up close to the Hornbreen glacier for the 48 passengers on board to take photos and marvel at the sight. Unfortunately while they were there, the glacier ‘calved’. This is when a large chunk of ice falls off the glacier to create an iceberg in the sea. This event sent blocks of ice flying onto the deck of the ship, and caused it to be hit by a huge wave.
The wave was so big it rocked the boat to a 45 degree angle sending passengers crashing to the deck floor. Sixteen of the passengers are now seeking compensation from the tour operators, Discover the World Ltd. The company has denied all liability for the incident in an early hearing at London’s High Court.
Among the injuries passengers are claiming for are cases of a fractured skull, whiplash, fractured ribs, a fractured collar bone, and a life threatening lung injury. The Judge heard that most claims would amount to damages of no more than £50,000 each.
The issue of liability will be based on the fact that passengers claim that the vessel had been taken too close to the glacier and claim to have photos to back up their case. Also under scrutiny will be whether the code of safe navigation in the Arctic was followed, and whether the incident was foreseeable.
The full trial is expected to take place early next year.
A man who underwent a gastric bypass operation is now suing the hospital in question for medical negligence after becoming unable to eat.
Tim Daily weighed 24 stone when he decided to undergo the dramatic surgical procedure in October 2008. He underwent the procedure at Charing Cross Hospital but claims he was not fully warned about the dangers and possible complications of surgery.
Although Mr Daily’s weight has now halved to 12 stone, it has come at a considerable price. He is now unable to eat solid food and as a result has to be fed through a tube directly into his stomach. He also suffers severe pain, so strong that he requires the use of morphine to be able to deal with it.
Now the BBC is reporting that Mr Daily is suing Imperial College Hospital Trust for compensation. The case revolves around whether he was warned about the dangers of the operation or not. The Trust itself states that all weight loss surgery patients are told that in 5% of cases there are complications after surgery. Mr Daily however states that he was only told of the positive aspects of the procedure. The case will be decided some time in the future.
Gastric band surgery has seen a dramatic rise in popularity in the last few years, with several high profile cases boosting knowledge of the procedure. The NHS reports that over 4000 gastric bypass operations are performed a year. The surgery usually works by shrinking the size of the stomach considerably with a plastic band.
An unnamed woman has won £4 million pounds birth injury compensation after errors in her delivery left her disabled.
The woman who is now 18 took her case against Rochford Hospital in Essex to London’s High Court. She was born there in 1992 and her claim centred on the fact that mismanagement of her delivery has left her with “terribly serious disabilities”.
The woman requires the use of a wheelchair, has learning difficulties and lacks the ability to communicate meaningfully through speech. Due to the serious nature of her disabilities she has required round-the-clock care all her life and will continue to do so. The Judge presiding in the case praised her mother who has devoted her life to caring for her daughter. Mr Justice Parker described this as an “extraordinary effort”.
A compensation settlement was agreed which consisted of a lump sum payment of £1.6 million with annual payments to follow. These payments will start at £140,000 a year and rise with age to £175,000 a year. These figures will cover the cost of the woman’s extensive and expensive care and medical needs.
Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – the operators of Rochford Hospital – were praised for the sensitivity and speed with which they settled the case.
A man who was disabled by the MMR vaccine as a toddler has won his compensation claim.
Robert Fletcher was given the combined vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella as a 13 month old baby. Just ten days after the injection Robert suffered a severe convulsive seizure which has left him seriously brain damaged.
He has been left epileptic, incontinent and a frequent sufferer of seizures. The damage to his brain has left him unable to stand or talk. He requires constant care which he receives from his father and mother Jackie.
The MMR vaccine has long been a controversial issue after the now discredited former doctor Andrew Wakefield made claims in the late 90s that the injection was linked to cases of autism in children. It was later found that these claims were unfounded and he was recently struck off the medical register.
Robert’s family have been fighting for compensation for 13 years and have recently been victorious. The family first applied to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme in 1997. The scheme provides compensation to those seriously injured by vaccinations. However, this first application was not accepted on grounds that a link to his injuries and the vaccine could not be proved.
The family appealed this decision, and last week a medical assessment panel sat and decided that Robert was harmed by the vaccine, as the time from the injection to the seizure was too close to be coincidence.
Robert was awarded £90,000 in compensation, although his mother described this figure as derisory for the extent of injuries he has suffered.
Thousands more dog attack compensation claims could become possible if discussed changes in the law become a reality.
The new ConDem Government is being lobbied by many groups to toughen laws on dog ownership in regards to attacks on the general public. At the present moment if for example a postman is attacked by a dog on private property it is not possible to prosecute the owner and let the victim claim criminal compensation.
The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 makes it illegal to let a dog be out of control in public. However, it does not set anything in law about controlling dogs on private property. This has led to unbelievable cases such as that of postman Keith Davies. Despite the postman losing an arm in an attack by two rottweillers, the dog owner did not face prosecution as it happened on a private road.
The group of charities and organisations – including the RSPCA – is seeking action from the government immediately. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) started a consultation into current legislation relating to dogs in March this year, and is expected to publish its findings and recommendations shortly.
A change in the law could see in an increase in dog insurance that would cover compensation claims made against the dog owner if his pet attacks. There is also some discussion in regards to making dog insurance compulsory as is the case with car insurance.
