Last month, Lord Young argued that emergency service workers ought to be exempt from health and safety laws on the basis that legal red tape can prevent them from performing their duties effectively. Lord Young said: “Technically speaking, the firemen could say they wouldn’t go to a fire because it was too dangerous. We’ve just got to get sense back into the system”. As perhaps might be expected, Lord Young did not provide any evidence of firemen failing to attend a fire due to concerns about their personal safety. On the contrary, the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, argued that such an event had not occurred to his knowledge.

Mr Wrack said: “There is no evidence whatsoever that excessive health and safety regulation is, in any way, damaging the ability of the Fire and Rescue Service to respond to emergency incidents”. Therefore, technically speaking, Lord Young supported his belief that emergency service workers ought to be exempt from health and safety laws by describing a situation that has never happened. Mr Wrack added that thirteen fire-fighters had been killed between 2003 and 2007 under purportedly restrictive health and safety laws, whereas no fire-fighters died between 1996 and 2002 as a result of workplace injuries or illnesses. In other words, Lord Young has no reason whatsoever to suggest that fire-fighters would use health and safety guidelines to skip a particularly dangerous job.

Accident claims involving injured fire-fighters are relatively rare in the UK, not least because the courts already accept that fire-fighters knowingly expose themselves to a certain degree of additional risk. Emergency service workers ought not to be exempt from health and safety laws, however, because there is no good reason why a fire-fighter, paramedic or police officer should not be afforded the same legal protection as any other person. Health and safety law does not prevent a fire-fighter from putting out a blaze, or a paramedic from rushing to an injured person’s rescue or a police officer from apprehending a violent offender; nonetheless, such workers should be entitled to pursue personal injury claims if they have suffered injury or illness as a result of somebody else’s negligence.

Mr Wrack concluded: “Fire-fighters respond day in and day out to emergency incidents of all kinds. They have the right to demand the best training, equipment and resources to do so. The only thing threatening our emergency response is the seemingly endless drive to make cuts to front-line emergency cover”.

At the time of the accident, Mr Heeney was wearing prescription safety glasses, which were not sealed but had protective guards on its sides. Unfortunately, these glasses were wholly unsuitable as safety devices for Mr Heeney’s line of work. During the accident, acid splashed into Mr Heeney’s mouth and right eye; consequently, the worker sustained damage to his tear duct that now requires him to use lubricating drops on a regular basis. Mr Heeney also suffered cosmetic damage in so far as his right eyelid now droops. Workplace accident claims are often brought against employers in the UK where health and safety standards have proved insufficient to prevent injury. Mr Heeney’s case is just one of many personal injury claims that has resulted in an entirely avoidable injury. Nowinnofee provides professional legal services to people injured in accidents at work.

Upon investigating, Mrs Koupparis was shocked to discover the cause of the twins’ distress. Mrs Koupparis said: “I went into the room and I saw some blood in Isabella’s cot, I thought she had a nosebleed. I put on the light, I saw the fox, it just looked at me and it wasn’t even scared of me. I started screaming as I realised Lola was also covered in blood”. Fortunately, neither twin was fatally injured in the attack; however, both required hospital treatment and Isabella faces the prospect of further surgery on her arm as she grows older. Consultant reconstructive surgeon, Raj Ragoowansi, of the Royal London Children’s Hospital, treated Isabella’s injuries and noted: “The bite was a very strong bite because as far as the upper arm was concerned the wound was down to the bone. That takes some considerable force”.

The public’s response to the fox attack had been predictably varied, with many people urging an inner-city cull on foxes and others suggesting the Koupparis’ are ultimately to blame. On the latter point, there ought to be no question that Mr and Mrs Koupparis, who were watching television at the time of the accident, were somewhat careless in leaving a ground-floor door open. Regardless as to how warm it is, leaving a door open at night – or, for that matter, at any time – raises the possibility of an intruder entering the house. Of course, human predators are more likely to take advantage of such opportunities than foxes, so the Koupparis family perhaps ought to consider itself fortunate in the circumstances. On the former point, however, the attack has raised one or two issues of public liability.

Personal injury claims involving foxes are unheard of in the UK, which is arguably not surprising. Because foxes are normally wild animals, accident claims cannot be brought against owners because there are none. However, foxes are considered to be pests in urban areas – not to mention the countryside – and, as such, there is a question as to whether the local authority ought to do more to protect humans from the occasional fox attack.

On this point, it is argued that only where a specific and exceptional duty of care has been breached can compensation be awarded to the victim of a fox attack; unless, of course, the fox itself is owned by a person, company or other such organisation. Aside from legal liability, local authorities ought to consider social responsibility in their handling of urban fox populations. Speaking about the fox attack in question, London mayor Boris Johnson said: “It is right that boroughs should focus on their duties for pest control because as romantic and cuddly as a fox is it is also a pest”.

Accident claims involving falls from height are not uncommon in the construction industry, especially in regard to falls from height. Personal injury claims raised by workers who have fallen from height often deal with catastrophic or serious injuries. Having fallen 20 feet from the scaffolding gantry to the ground beneath, Mr O’Malley was lucky to survive the incident but was left with serious and permanent brain injuries.

After Mr O’Malley’s mother contacted the former scaffolder’s trade union, Unite, a claim for compensation was brought against Powertherm. However, Mr O’Malley’s former employer settled out of court for an undisclosed sum and are currently seeking damages from the contractors responsible for the scaffolding platform. Mr O’Malley’s mother, Maisey, said: “At first we had to get our heads round the idea that he wouldn’t survive but after four years of intensive rehabilitation in hospital Patrick has been able to return home with full time care”. No win no fee provides professional legal advice to those who have been injured in accidents at work.

After recounting his working history, which is no minor accomplishment for a man in his late seventies, Mr Harrison realised that he had been indirectly exposed to asbestos between 1954 and 1962 at Cadbury’s Bournville factory because part of his job was to interview colleagues for the monthly works magazine. Unfortunately, some of these colleagues included workers who routinely stripped and repaired pipes that were insulated with asbestos. As such, the asbestos fibres present on their clothes and in the atmosphere would have likely caused Mr Harrison’s mesothelioma.

Mr Harrison noted: “When I was interviewing someone I would do so on the shop floor, perhaps a few feet from where they were working”. After pursuing legal action against Cadbury, Mr Harrison received £100,000 in compensation. No win no fee is able to provide legal services to those who suffer injury or illness in the workplace.

The Road Safety Foundation’s report covers 28,000 miles of A-roads and motorways in Britain and identifies the A537 between Macclesfield in Cheshire and Buxton in Derbyshire as the nation’s most dangerous stretch of road. The A537 is notable for its location within the Peak District; winding roads, blind corners, sharp bends and steep falls abound on the A537, which also happens to be surrounded by mountainous rock faces and dry-stone walls. Known as the Cat and Fiddle, the A537 pass through the Peak District claimed 34 lives between 2006 and 2008 – 19 more than the three years leading to 2005 – and most crashes tend to happen in daylight conditions.

After the A537, the A5012 Pikehall to Matlock (Derbyshire) is Britain’s second most dangerous road, followed by the A621 Baslow (Derbyshire) to Totley (South Yorkshire), A625 Calver to Sheffield (South Yorkshire) and A54 Congleton to Buxton (Derbyshire). The top ten most dangerous roads in Britain are rounded off by the A581 Rufford to Chorley (Lancashire), A5004 Whaley Bridge to Buxton (Derbyshire), A675 Blackburn to Preston (Lancashire), A61 Barnsley (South Yorkshire) to Wakefield (West Yorkshire) and A285 Chichester to Petworth (West Sussex).

Dr Joanne Hill, director of the Road Safety Foundation, claimed that more could be done to improve safety on Britain’s most dangerous roads at relatively little expense. Dr Hill said: “Not only can Britain reduce road deaths and serious injuries but, by targeting a relatively small mileage of high-risk roads, we can do so with good economic returns. Too often we pay for emergency services, hospitals and care for the disabled rather than taking easy steps to put road design faults right”.

Although the most dangerous road in Britain was listed by the report as the A537, Scotland was regarded as having the highest-risk highways; in fact, one in every nine fatal crashes occur in Scotland. Excluding crashes involving motorcycles further skews the top ten most dangerous roads list, with the A18 in North East Lincolnshire emerging as the most hazardous. Obviously, crashes occur for different reasons in different circumstances at different locations, so while one road may be particularly dangerous for car drivers another might pose greater risks for motorcyclists. Understanding why such trends arise is key to improving road safety.

The report by the Road Safety Foundation claimed that a third of all accidents involving fatal or serious injuries occur at junctions and 25 per cent of such crashes that take place on A-roads or motorways involve motorcyclists. Single roads are six times more dangerous than motorways and twice as dangerous as dual carriageways. According to the report, the West Midlands is the safest British region in which to drive, whilst the A40 between Llandovery and Carmarthen has experienced the most safety improvements.

Unfortunately, the ladle he was using turned over and spilled a quantity of molten iron onto the floor. Within moments, the worker was surrounded by steam and smoke and could feel the intense heat of the molten iron burning around him. Unable to escape the danger zone because an aluminium escape ladder had melted, the worker came dangerously close to death before he was rescued.

Accident claims involving life-altering injuries are relatively common in the manufacturing industry, which is perhaps not surprising considering the nature of the tasks undertaken by employees. In the present case, the 28-year-old worker from Horwich sustained horrific burns to his legs, arms and torso; in fact, such were the severity of his injuries, the man was placed into a medically induced coma by surgeons, who contemplated amputating both legs before managing to provide alternative treatment. Although the worker raised a personal injury claim through his trade union, Unite, the matter was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. Nowinnofee regularly provides legal assistance to those injured in accidents at work.

When David Cameron announced last year that his party aimed to allow companies to self-regulate their health and safety procedures, almost all trade unions highlighted the dangers of such an act. The Health and Safety Executive, however, remained silent on the matter until Lord Young’s review was afforded more attention at the beginning of June. Since then, the Health and Safety Executive’s Chair, Judith Hackitt, has welcomed the review as a means of exposing companies that hide behind the veil of Health and Safety for one reason or another, whilst the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) has declared the review as an ideal opportunity to explore the contradicting ways in which the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 can be interpreted. Unfortunately, early indications suggest that Lord Young’s review aims to cut substantially deeper than most health and safety organisations would prefer.

In an effort to restore “common sense” to the country, Lord Young has pledged to change regulation in order to bring about a “system that is proportionate and not bureaucratic”. During recent weeks, Lord Young has highlighted the role of emergency workers, personal injury law firms and office buildings as requiring change in the health and safety context. On the latter point, Lord Young commented: “I don’t think offices are dangerous places”. In reply, a spokesperson for the Prospect union warned that Lord Young must clearly demarcate “petty bureaucracy enacted under the label of health and safety and HSE regulation to prevent deaths and disease in the workplace”. It is feared, however, that Lord Young’s review might be part of a wider Conservative agenda to cut national spending; by deregulating health and safety to a certain extent, significant public savings could be made whilst enabling companies to free themselves of regulatory red tape. Theoretically, such a move would be good for the economy in the short-term – but what consequence would it have on the welfare of workers?

Another element of Lord Young’s health and safety reviews aims to tackle the ways in which personal injury law firms operate. In fact, Lord Young has openly expressed an intention to end television adverts explaining the public’s right to access legal assistance in pursuing compensation. Reducing the number of personal injury claims raised in courts across England and Wales would sit well with the Conservative’s cost-cutting measures, not least because the Ministry of Justice has this week announced plans to close 103 magistrates’ courts and 54 County Courts in the UK.

Advertising no-win-no-fee personal injury services is an essential component of the justice system in England and Wales; outlawing television advertisements on the subject merely limits the public’s access to justice.

In typical circumstances, patients who undergo planned surgery on the NHS are aware that certain risks exist. Indeed, no operation – not even the most minor elective surgical procedure – is completely devoid of risk. The consultation period that exists before surgery is carried out is intended to be used by patients as a means of addressing concerns about the operation, but it also provides surgeons with a vital opportunity to learn more about their patients; unfortunately, the survey revealed that many surgeons are routinely asked to ’slip in’ extra patients on their operating lists and, consequently, this undermines the consultation period. In fact, many surgeons complained that they are not always in full clinical control because hospital management constantly demand that operating lists are cleared quickly to meet targets. The net effect of such behaviour is to place patient safety at risk.

The survey’s principal author, Professor Colin Pritchard from the School of Health and Social Care at Bournemouth University, argues that hospital management could be exposing many patients to unnecessary risks. Professor Pritchard said: “If anything goes wrong they’re [the surgeons] responsible but not in charge. The key is the influence – and often the malign influence – of managers who are concerned with meeting targets”. Personal injury claims involving acts of clinical negligence remain relatively high in the UK, at least in comparison to other EU countries. The degree to which NHS micromanagement exerts undue pressure on surgeons to cause instances in which patients are harmed is not entirely clear, but surgeons feel it is a key issue that needs addressing. Other factors that have been cited as contributing towards botched operations include poor staffing, insufficient equipment and thinly spread clinical teams.

A spokesperson for the Patients Association claimed: “This study gives yet more weight to the idea that whilst the NHS may have been meeting its targets over the past few years, that doesn’t mean those targets are always a benefit for patients”. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley added that the survey highlighted the failings of the previous administration. Mr Lansley said: “Patient safety must come first, that means allowing clinicians to focus on the outcome of a patient’s treatment, rather than the diktats of managers. That’s why we will abolish Labour’s top-down process targets and replace them with outcome measures, which drive improvements in the quality of patient care”. Whatever steps are taken to improve the management of surgical teams in the UK, it is clear that more must be done to put the patient’s needs ahead of hospital targets.

As with so many hit-and-run road traffic accident claims, the fact that the incident occurred in relatively good light at a designated crossing did not prevent the hit-and-run vehicle from escaping before its registration plate could be noted. The lollipop man was required to pursue a compensation claim for his injuries with the Motor Insurance Bureau, which deals with accident claims involving uninsured or untraceable drivers.

Substantial damages were awarded in order to reflect the extensive injuries he had sustained during the incident. The injured man suffered a fractured tibia, fractured wrist and serious back injury after he was struck by a stationary car that had been hit from behind by the hit-and-run driver. The incident could so easily have been made worse had young children been crossing at the time of the crash.

Despite a thorough police investigation, the hit-and-run driver was never identified. Each year, nowinnofee helps hundreds of people who have been injured in road traffic accidents that were caused by the negligence of other drivers. Nowinnofee solicitors fight for the maximum compensation available and deal with numerous other types of claim, including workplace accidents.