Ms Hunt had been working for Swan House Heritage Care since 2002 but left soon after the incident, in which Jack Tooby, who had a history of violence towards women, held Ms Hunt in a headlock and repeatedly punched the 56-year-old. Despite concerns raised by other staff members, Swan House care home managers refused to transfer Mr Tooby to a secure hospital. Ms Hunt was attacked when she was working alone helping a patient to the toilet.

After suffering serious neck and shoulder injuries, which included a painful trapped nerve, Ms Hunt resigned from her job. Swan House Heritage Care agreed to pay Ms Hunt compensation over the incident in an out-of-court settlement. Ms Hunt said: “I was shocked at how I was treated by the care home… bosses just wanted to brush it under the carpet”. Nowinnofee can provide professional legal services to those who have been injured or made ill as a result of their employment.

Doctors at the Queen Elizabeth hospital carried out emergency surgery to drain the abscess in hope of relieving Mr Joplin’s symptoms and avoiding lasting spinal damage; however, the father-of-two is now paralysed in both arms and legs. Speaking via his legal team, Mr Joplin said: “The encounter I had at Russells Hall Hospital in March 2003 changed me from being a socially skilled individual and useful member of my family, to complete dependency and in almost constant pain. I now want others to realise that they should not be complacent when seeking help from the NHS.”

Accident claims involving medical errors are relatively common in the UK, with many such personal injury claims arising after treatment has fallen woefully short of expected standards. Failing to accurately diagnose a condition is not in itself an act of clinical negligence but, depending on the circumstances of a case, it could contribute towards legal action. Under established principles of negligence law, doctors are liable for any injury or illness they cause if they have failed to reach the standard expected of a responsible body of medical opinion. In the present case, it could hardly be argued that doctors at Russells Hall Hospital acted reasonably in failing to investigate Mr Joplin’s condition further.

Following a seven-year legal battle, The Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust agreed to pay Mr Joplin £825,000 in an out-of-court settlement. A spokesperson for the trust said: “It [the trust] accepts that there were lessons to be learned and certain systems rectified in order to protect other patients in the future. We are very pleased that a financial settlement has been reached and hope that this will provide financial security to Mr Timothy Joplin and his very caring family in the future.”

After claiming that no amount of money could fully compensate the injuries he had sustained, Mr Joplin warned others of blindly trusting the NHS. Mr Joplin said: “Numerous polite inquiries were made to the staff expressing concerns about my care and pointing out my deterioration, but none of these was addressed… everyone should be vigilant when [they are] an in-patient and family and friends must be prepared to complain and complain again loudly and clearly if they have any concerns.”

Mr Joplin’s advice ought not to be discounted by those admitted to hospital. Although the standard of care provided by NHS staff is often very good, acts of clinical negligence can produce devastating results, as evidenced by Mr Joplin, who is now confined to a specially adapted wheelchair and requires round-the-clock assistance. It is also worth noting that the size of Mr Joplin’s compensation award may seem large but, after necessary expenses and loss of earnings are factored in, not to mention a reduction in his quality of life, this is far from the case.

China, India, Russia, Brazil and, perhaps surprisingly, Canada, all mine and distribute asbestos on a large scale. Following a report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), it has been revealed that asbestos – chiefly white asbestos or chrysotile – remains a multi-million dollar industry that spans four continents. The ICIJ report claims that more than one million metric tons of asbestos was produced, consumed and exported by Russia in 2008. During the same year, Canada produced nearly 200,000 metric tons. In 2007, China had mined, distributed or used in excess of 600,000 metric tons of asbestos, whilst Kazakhstan also produces a large quantity of the material.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), up to 125 million people encounter white asbestos in the workplace and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimates that approximately 100,000 workers die from asbestos related diseases each year. These shocking figures correlate with those revealed by the ICIJ report, which has implications for the whole world and not merely those nations that are directly exposed to asbestos. Although banned in the UK for over a decade, asbestos continues to pose a significant hazard for construction workers and people who live in older properties. In fact, according to the TUC, which is one of Britain’s most popular trade unions, asbestos is the country’s biggest industrial killers, accounting for as many as 10,000 deaths in the UK each year. The TUC also claims that up to six million tonnes of asbestos could exist in schools, offices and residential properties across Britain.

People in the UK may also be surprised to learn that white asbestos is still used legally in the United States; indeed, the US continues to use chrysotile products in the automobile and aviation industries. The US, however, has endured an estimated $70 billion worth of personal injury claims relating to the use of asbestos, so the material is not as widely used today as it once had been. Notions that white asbestos is significantly less dangerous than blue or brown asbestos have been refuted by many leading scientists. Alex Burdorf, a professor of public health at the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, said: “What we have shown is that chrysotile is as dangerous as crocidolite [blue asbestos] for contracting lung cancer and is also linked to mesothelioma. I don’t think there is safe way of working with asbestos, so I would support a global ban on asbestos purely because of public health risks”.

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”.

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”.

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.

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.

In respect to personal injury claims, the notion of fining or penalising hospitals that discharge patients prematurely ought to be welcomed; indeed, financial penalties could fill a hole in the common law that makes it especially difficult – yet not impossible – to claim compensation for injury or illness that has arisen following an early release from hospital. Clinical negligence cases require satisfaction of the Bolam test, which states that doctors do not act negligently if they attain the standard of a “responsible body of medical opinion”. At first glance, personal injury claims involving untimely discharges from hospital could be regarded as acts of negligence on the part of doctors who ought to realise that conditions may worsen without prolonged treatment. Unfortunately, in practice, such a claim can be difficult to establish.

The key reason why such claims are usually without merit is that negligence law requires a negligent act or omission (in this case the discharge) to cause the injury or illness in question. In a factual sense, but for a hospital’s early release of a patient, an illness or injury may not have developed or worsened. In a legal sense, however, there are worthy policy reasons why such decisions ought not to necessarily give rise to personal injury claims; indeed, doing so could expose the NHS and the courts to a flood of litigation. Although exceptional cases do arise every so often, the civil law of tort cannot adequately deal with all claims involving premature releases from hospital. However, by penalising hospitals for readmissions that occur within a 30-day period, the Government may inadvertently raise the exposure of offending hospitals to such claims.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast, Mr Lansley said: “What we must escape from is the perverse situation at the moment where a hospital might discharge patients too early – and we have seen a 50 per cent increase in the number of emergency readmissions – and then when the patient comes back as an emergency, the hospital gets paid again”. Mr Lansley added: “What I am saying today is in part about focusing on patient safety and on better care for patients. This safer, better care is also more cost effective and if I can cut, as I will do, the cost of bureaucracy, the cost of administration, cut out waste in the NHS, then we can get those resources to support increasing quality for patients”. Between 1998 and 1999, a total of 359,719 emergency readmissions within a 30-day period were reported, whereas, between 2007 and 2008, 546,354 such cases were reported.

Entitled ‘The burden of occupational cancer in Great Britain’, the report aimed to establish a reliable estimate as to the current burden of occupational cancer in Britain. In order to achieve this, researchers used attributable fraction (AF) to measure the burden on the country’s workforce. Attributable fraction refers to the proportion of cancer cases that would not have occurred but for the exposure; in this respect, exposure describes any work-related activity or carcinogen that is known to cause or exacerbate cancer. Clearly, any significant link between work and cancer raises difficulties for employers, who are duty-bound to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all their employees so far as is reasonably practicable, as prescribed by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The burden of occupational cancer in Great Britain report classified exposure as either Group 1 or Group 2A, where the latter refers to probable cases and the former describes those that have been officially established; this classification system is used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Worryingly, the Health and Safety Executive study found that 5.3 per cent of all cancer-related fatalities in Great Britain during 2005 were attributable to occupation.

The report also revealed a disturbing trend affecting both male and female cancer sufferers; 56 per cent of all cancer registrations in men were attributable to work in the construction industry, whilst 54 per cent of cancer registrations in women were attributable to shift work. Male subjects who worked in the construction industry suffered primarily from mesothelioma, lung, bladder and non-melanoma skin cancers, whereas female shift workers most commonly developed breast cancer.

The Health and Safety Executive study identified a number of factors known to cause or contribute towards the development of cancer in workers. Occupational attributable fractions were relatively high (over 2 per cent) for mesothelioma, lung cancer, breast cancer, non-melanoma skin cancer, bladder cancer and soft tissue sarcoma. The report also highlighted asbestos, mineral oils, solar radiation, silica dust, diesel engine exhaust fumes, dioxins, tobacco smoke, tetrachloroethylene, strong inorganic mists and shift work as each causing more than 100 cancer registrations. Ensuring that workers are protected from harm in the workplace does not merely involve an assessment as to whether sufficient guard rails are installed, machinery maintained and so on; indeed, employers must also equip workers with the skills, knowledge and equipment to avoid unnecessary exposure to factors that are known to cause cancer and other such illnesses.