McRedmond v AGS Scaffolding Limited
Mr McRedmond suffered an accident at work on 20.11.2006. He had been dismantling scaffolding on a building site when his right hand was struck by a bracket stuck fast to a pole as he slid it through his hand. Mr McRedmond had not been warned by a work colleague about the bracket still attached to the pole.
The Defendant company denied liability and argued that our client was the author of his own misfortune. Eventually proceedings were issued upon which the Defendant conceded liability. Shortly before trial a Joint Settlement Meeting was held to see if a compromise was possible. As a result compensation of £84,000 was paid.
Mr McRedmond was 64 years old at the time of the accident and but for the accident had intended to continue working as long as he was physically able. Further, as a result of the accident Mr McRedmond required ongoing care and support from his family. Both loss of earnings and the costs of future care were factored into the compensation agreed .
MRS A v London Borough of Redbridge
On Sunday, 20.7.2008 Mrs A was walking along Wanstead High Street when she tripped and fell over a raised paving stone causing her to fall forward and to break her right wrist. Redbridge Council denied liability on the grounds that the pavement had only been inspected within the last couple of months before the accident when the defect had not been recorded. However, we were able to find an independent witness who had tripped at the same spot about 3 months before Mrs A, and furthermore we argued that the inspection regime was inadequate.
We prepared papers to commence court proceedings but before doing so put forward an offer to settle the claim based on a medical report and an assessment of our client’s future care needs (our client was in particular restricted in the contribution she could now make to housework).
Settlement was reached on 31.3.2010 for £40,500.00 the greater part of which related to our client’s future care needs. It is quite possible that this case would have failed but for assertive representation and identifying shortcomings in the Council’s inspection and maintenance procedures for pavements in the borough.
