Injury Lawyers 4 U

danlikesbikes

So sat having my lunch when this ad comes on the TV - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHbNunk0xVY

Which is an outtake on Youtube the ad is the same.

Can't stand these type of ad's anyway but if your genuinely injured have no problems with people making a claim.

However are they suggesting that if your walking down some steps that I can see nothing wrong with, not wet/iced up from the video footage, wearing heals and trying to talk to a f*****g camera crew & you fall down its OK to take someone to court. Either the council for daring to build perfectly good steps in that you simply are unable to use. Or the TV company paying you to walk down them for the ad as they didn't to a good enough H&S risk assessment that probably would have proved that they are steps and and most people can use and you are a complete t@@t and unable to walk properly.

Rant over

VTech

Ive just got back to the UK from the states and its far worse there, people do not want to do certain things just out of the possible danger of a lawsuit. Its coming to the UK with a vengeance, If you go to your mom/dad/sister/brothers/school home or place of work and slip on ice you can sue them, even though they have no control over the weather. its a joke and something that should be eradicated, it is really effecting business in a detrimental way, health and safety in so many cases is also a joke, feeding the lawyers who are happy to destroy people and businesses in the search of quick cash.

danlikesbikes

I know what you mean - don;t take it personally as I know from past posts you spent some time there but really the USAifacation in the UK is a bloody joke.

I once was on crutches my own fault and nobody else to blame, walking down the street and get jumped by 3 different people trying to stick a flying in my hand "where you've been injured there could be a claim". No F'ing was could there be a claim as i was the twunt that injured myself.

My rant was that it is highly ironic that a cash for claim type company that has some made up reenactments to advertise itself did in fact suffer from an actor falling over & they used that outtake as part of their ad campaign as if saying that there was a claim to be had in that instance.

Frank the tank

It's the ambulance chasing culture. During the last twenty years or so people seem to be liberated of any kind of responsibility for their own actions.

Take this as an example. I was playing football in a Sunday morning game and leapt to take a high ball. Upon landing my foot went down a small hollow in the ground, twisting and spraining my ankle severly. I lost a week off work and was unfit to play for about a month and I paid for physio on it aswell.

Did I for one second consider sueing anyone/authority, of course not it was my misfortune I (IMHO) was playing at my own risk.

I dare say someone else in this day and age would consider sueing anyone that they could make a charge of neglegence or whatever stick to. And it stinks.

fast as fupp

VTech wrote:

Ive just got back to the UK from the states and its far worse there, people do not want to do certain things just out of the possible danger of a lawsuit. Its coming to the UK with a vengeance, If you go to your mom/dad/sister/brothers/school home or place of work and slip on ice you can sue them, even though they have no control over the weather. its a joke and something that should be eradicated, it is really effecting business in a detrimental way, health and safety in so many cases is also a joke, feeding the lawyers who are happy to destroy people and businesses in the search of quick cash.

dont confuse health & safety with private litigation

h& s isnt a joke-it saves lives

danlikesbikes

Frank the tank wrote:

It's the ambulance chasing culture. During the last twenty years or so people seem to be liberated of any kind of responsibility for their own actions.

Take this as an example. I was playing football in a Sunday morning game and leapt to take a high ball. Upon landing my foot went down a small hollow in the ground, twisting and spraining my ankle severly. I lost a week off work and was unfit to play for about a month and I paid for physio on it aswell.

Did I for one second consider sueing anyone/authority, of course not it was my misfortune I (IMHO) was playing at my own risk.

I dare say someone else in this day and age would consider sueing anyone that they could make a charge of neglegence or whatever stick to. And it stinks.

Did something similar playing Rugby a few years ago and I too only consider myself at fault as it was me and nobody else involved the pitch was not dangerous I just ran (literally) out of talent.

Must be a cultural thing as I still wouldn't consider trying to make a claim even if it happened today.

Drfabulous0

fast as fupp wrote:

h& s isnt a joke-it saves lives

I can't agree, common sense and taking responsibilty is what saves lives, health and safety regulation has got out of control and has become a costly self serving bureaucracy of the worst kind. Why the hell do I need to fill in a COSHH report on washing up liquid? Clearly unless you drink it it is harmless, if you're so dumb you don't know that I wouldn't have hired you in the first place.

danlikesbikes

Drfabulous0 wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

h& s isnt a joke-it saves lives

I can't agree, common sense and taking responsibilty is what saves lives, health and safety regulation has got out of control and has become a costly self serving bureaucracy of the worst kind. Why the hell do I need to fill in a COSHH report on washing up liquid? Clearly unless you drink it it is harmless, if you're so dumb you don't know that I wouldn't have hired you in the first place.

Do agree that common sense plays a massive part. But H&S at work whilst a pain the arse at time but it does save lives. Just look at the construction industry which 10 years ago was a pretty dangerous place to work & now is a lot safer due to the tighter H&S rules that apply.

Though I do agree also that sometimes a Darwinian rule perhaps should apply that if you don't know how to use something like washing up liquid then perhaps it is safer if you just drank it and did the whole world a favour by removing yourself from the gene pool. I don't think that it is the H&S body that have made things worse but peoples/organisations interpretations and beliefs that if we stick it on a form its going to cover us.

Frank the tank

Drfabulous0 wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

h& s isnt a joke-it saves lives

I can't agree, common sense and taking responsibilty is what saves lives, health and safety regulation has got out of control and has become a costly self serving bureaucracy of the worst kind. Why the hell do I need to fill in a COSHH report on washing up liquid? Clearly unless you drink it it is harmless, if you're so dumb you don't know that I wouldn't have hired you in the first place.

Certain individuals are stupid will do stupid things ( I dare say you'd only have to talk to a nurse/Dr in A&E when the DIY season kicks in)

I will say this, a friend of mine who worked in H&S said "You might think the cost of H&S is high, but the cost of an accident is a lot more".

I do agree, on one level you must credit people with some common sense. However H&S legislation is there for the protection of all.

fast as fupp

Drfabulous0 wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

h& s isnt a joke-it saves lives

I can't agree, common sense and taking responsibilty is what saves lives, health and safety regulation has got out of control and has become a costly self serving bureaucracy of the worst kind. Why the hell do I need to fill in a COSHH report on washing up liquid? Clearly unless you drink it it is harmless, if you're so dumb you don't know that I wouldn't have hired you in the first place.

never heard of dermatitis? or maybe cleaners or dishwashers mean nothing to you?

VTech

Health and safety says you cant have a stick with your candy floss, thats a a joke, common sense is better when mixed with health and safety or maybe health and safety should incorporate common sense ?
I am 100% behind safety, we had drivers getting killed each year until JS changed the rules and regulations so its of mega importance.

Did any of you see the Oprah Windfrey episode where she staged a bus crash in New York, within 15 seconds over 30 people jumped on the bus directly with the sole purpose of trying to make a claim as a passenger. She shamed them on TV but doesnt that show just what the world has become ?

One thing I never mentioned on this forum when I first joined was "why" I was so overweight, I was flying from L.A to London and one of the toilets were out so the cabin crew decided to allow the coach passengers use the front toilets. I was lying down, asleep on the bed when someone waiting for the toilet fell on me, it tore the upper ligament in my groin which caused me to be immobile for a few months and I put on over a stone in weight. I didnt sue them, it was an accident but I am sure many would have.

Gabbo

You'll either love it or hate it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL2EjrW3SPc

On_What

fast as fupp wrote:

Drfabulous0 wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

h& s isnt a joke-it saves lives

I can't agree, common sense and taking responsibilty is what saves lives, health and safety regulation has got out of control and has become a costly self serving bureaucracy of the worst kind. Why the hell do I need to fill in a COSHH report on washing up liquid? Clearly unless you drink it it is harmless, if you're so dumb you don't know that I wouldn't have hired you in the first place.

never heard of dermatitis? or maybe cleaners or dishwashers mean nothing to you?

if you get dermatitis off washing up liquid you are probably to weak to be of any use anyway

spen666

Nothing has changed in legal terms re compensation

Claimant (C) has to prove that Respondent (R) owes a duty of care to C

C has to show that R breached that duty of care

C has then to show that he suffered loss as a result of that breach.



If somebody owes you a duty of care and breaches it causing you to suffer loss, then why should they not be compensated?



The issue is with insurance companies/ individuals not being robust enough and fighting inappropriate claims

danlikesbikes

spen666 wrote:

The issue is with insurance companies/ individuals not being robust enough and fighting inappropriate claims

Really?

I think that they can't as when ever they go to court to fight these claims either their is a legal precedent against them or someone like the Daily Fail gets hold of the story and makes a massive song and dance about it giving an the industry a bad name for defending itself.

Though I do agree with the rest of what your saying but life is not quite a simple as that when it comes to going to court.

VTech

spen666 wrote:

Nothing has changed in legal terms re compensation

Claimant (C) has to prove that Respondent (R) owes a duty of care to C

C has to show that R breached that duty of care

C has then to show that he suffered loss as a result of that breach.



If somebody owes you a duty of care and breaches it causing you to suffer loss, then why should they not be compensated?



The issue is with insurance companies/ individuals not being robust enough and fighting inappropriate claims

Because some times accidents happen and people seem too quick to want to make a penny.
If someone fell at my home I wouldnt want them to sue me, I would also make sure they were not at a loss personally.

Coach H

fast as fupp wrote:

Drfabulous0 wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

h& s isnt a joke-it saves lives

I can't agree, common sense and taking responsibilty is what saves lives, health and safety regulation has got out of control and has become a costly self serving bureaucracy of the worst kind. Why the hell do I need to fill in a COSHH report on washing up liquid? Clearly unless you drink it it is harmless, if you're so dumb you don't know that I wouldn't have hired you in the first place.

never heard of dermatitis? or maybe cleaners or dishwashers mean nothing to you?

Or what about shampoo?
You may think this is perfectly benign but dermatitis is the biggest cause of ill health in the hairdressing industry with multiple examples a year of people having to permanently leave their jobs.

Likewise the Material Safety Data Sheet for every type of liquid soap will state to wear gloves for handling. Stupid? Not to the guy who works with gallons of the stuff at the manufacturers etc

I could really give examples all day.

In short, as has previously been stated, what is being discussed is the evolution of Tort Law which is centuries old.
'Elf and Safety is something different but mistakenly linked

Coach H

Danlikesbikes wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The issue is with insurance companies/ individuals not being robust enough and fighting inappropriate claims

Really?

I think that they can't as when ever they go to court to fight these claims either their is a legal precedent against them or someone like the Daily Fail gets hold of the story and makes a massive song and dance about it giving an the industry a bad name for defending itself.

Spen is bang on. Claims are virtually all settled on the balance of MONEY, not right or wrong (it is only in court that right and wrong MAY come into it). Why spend £1000's on defending a spurious claim when £100's can be spent settling?

EKIMIKE

Absolutely, spen666 and Coach H are correct.

The colloquial 'no win, no fee agreement' is actually called a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). It was meant to replace the void created by slashing the Legal Aid budget. At that level this essentially becomes an 'access to justice' issue. The problem is, the endless reports and commissions suggest, that litigation will always be a risk laden game suited to those with deep pockets.

In theory (well at least a nice distributive justice theory) shoveling the burden on insurance companies ain't such a bad idea. They're damn well rich enough to cope. The hitch is that they will of course pass the bill on to us via bigger premiums as opposed to absorbing it into their sacred profits. You also get a few fat cat lawyers creaming profits out of the situation, all of course in the name of justice.

My favourite 'no win, no fee' advert is one where they have a symbolic bundle of paper labelled 'Judgement' when all legally trained people (and no doubt many that aren't legally trained) know that when it comes from a Court it is in fact a Judgment - without the 'e'. Good work, dickheads.

EKIMIKE

Also, there's a lot that suggests we are not becoming a more litigious society.

I think the general feeling that we are (and i agree, it does 'feel' like we're becoming more litigious) is in fact paranoia founded in precautionary 'H&S' measures. It's more a case of people are paranoid about being sued rather than they are actually getting sued more often.

Put it this way - if you knew that you had to stand up in court to get your compnesation would you be more or less likely to pursue a claim? vs. if you knew the other side are almost guaranteed to offer a reasonable settlement would you be more or less likely to pursue a claim?

bobhitch

One of the problems of all these claims is the way the insurance industry works.
I have an employee who embarked on suing our business on a spurious claim .
We were contacted by a 'no win,no fee outfit' and they obviously expected us to roll over and even mentioned in a phone call that settling would be easy as our employers liability insurance would cover us.
a) Easy way out - admit guilt , insurance pays out 2 or 3 grand.
b) Hard way - refute the allegation and be prepared to have some of our team 'waste ' hours sending every piece of documentation , training records ,accident reports etc. etc. for the lawyers to try and find some small chink in the armour with which to prove our 'negligence'

We opted for plan B and 1 year later are still dealing with it , we refused to roll over ,much to the incredulity of the firm handling our ( hopefully soon to be ex ) employee who keep reminding us how easy it would be to end the process.

Whats even better is we can't even sack her despite her woeful attendance record and misplaced actions-but that's a different thread

VTech

bobhitch wrote:

One of the problems of all these claims is the way the insurance industry works.
I have an employee who embarked on suing our business on a spurious claim .
We were contacted by a 'no win,no fee outfit' and they obviously expected us to roll over and even mentioned in a phone call that settling would be easy as our employers liability insurance would cover us.
a) Easy way out - admit guilt , insurance pays out 2 or 3 grand.
b) Hard way - refute the allegation and be prepared to have some of our team 'waste ' hours sending every piece of documentation , training records ,accident reports etc. etc. for the lawyers to try and find some small chink in the armour with which to prove our 'negligence'

We opted for plan B and 1 year later are still dealing with it , we refused to roll over ,much to the incredulity of the firm handling our ( hopefully soon to be ex ) employee who keep reminding us how easy it would be to end the process.

Whats even better is we can't even sack her despite her woeful attendance record and misplaced actions-but that's a different thread

I feel for you, I've had someone who was a liability and a thief working with us and we couldn't get rid, we had no factual proof so couldn't do a thing. It was a nightmare so we ignored her for a short while and she left. We couldn't give her a bad reference either as apparently this is illegal so when asked we just said she worked for us for the time served which apparently works. She was a great worker when in and customers loved her which was what was upsetting, she had a great future if she could have got her act together.