We can help you claim
compensation following an accident
illness or injury - nationwide
Call: 0800 10 757 95
A curious case came to light this week which may have caused much discussion amongst personal injury solicitors and associated workers up and down the country.
A man, from Bristol, suffered personal injury in September 2008 after stopping a runaway van from careering into a road junction busy with elderly people and children, yet it seems that the owners of the van are reluctant to compensate him for his suffering or reward him for the prevention of a terrible car accident.
On the day of the incident, the driver of the van, having parked the vehicle, disembarked, but neglected to secure it by use of the handbrake. As he walked away, the van began to reverse down the hill and our subject decided to try to avert the accident by attempting to stop the runaway vehicle. In the process of trying to do so, he cracked a rib and injured his knee.
After the vehicle had been stopped, the young male driver spoke to the injured hero-of-the-hour. He said, "Did I forget to put the handbrake on?"
After making enquiries as to whether the company felt their client was entitled to compensation the 63-year-old man's solicitors received a letter from lawyers representing the business owners of the van, dismissing the claim.
In the letter of response the company claimed they could not be held responsible for the injuries because the man chose to stop the van without considering his personal consequences.
The letter said, "We assume your client is of average intelligence and as such he must have known that what he was attempting to do was fraught with great danger, with the real possibility of personal injury."
The lawyers' letter suggested that he should have not attempted to stop the vehicle and, though brave, he should not have undertaken his course of action as the van would have continued on its journey and thereby posed him no threat of personal injury.
It continued, "Of course it is commendable what your client did; however, [our clients] would never ask a member of the public to risk their own safety in the manner above, and, while unfortunate, your client does appear to be the author of his own misfortune. We trust common sense will prevail here and you will simply advise in due course that your client's claim is withdrawn."
The interesting point in this case is possibly the driver's negligence in failing to secure the van. And as a humble personal injury worker, I believe there perhaps should be some level of responsibility for that act of negligence. Our bystander did put himself at risk, but the driver put the general public at greater risk.
Here's an example: if a construction firm had badly rigged a set of scaffolding that was being used by workers, and, seeing an imminent collapse, one of those workers was injured in trying to prevent the collapse, it is almost certain that those responsible for erecting the structure would be held accountable, at least in some form. In fact, new regulations in the construction industry could see court prosecution for near-miss accidents; the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 has introduced custodial sentences of up to two years, and could see workers facing incarceration for safety breaches even if no accident or workplace injury occurs as a result of their actions.
So, here we have an accident that could have affected the general public and a member of the general public who averted it, yet the company responsible are claiming they bear no responsibility. That would seem a grossly irresponsible attitude to most people, to say the least.
It is unclear whether the case will go to court, but once the situation came to light in the media, the high profile company recanted.
A company spokesman offered an apology to the injured man for the contents of the letter and promised an investigation. They claimed to be in discussion with him and his personal injury solicitors. This looks promising in terms of some sort of redress; if only to ensure that the company in question looks further into the competence of their staff.
