Some of the most recent claims have included £21289 for tripping over a bag of balls in the playground, and £200000 for slipping on a grape. Another teacher who slipped on a book which was under a mat received £25674 for their injuries. Injuries that received compensation were not just accidental in nature, with unions releasing evidence that teachers and staff were also subjected to violent attacks by pupils and parents. One union alone had had to deal with over 76 attacks on staff.

Even greater pay outs were obtained where staff pursued claims for unfair dismissal, particularly where they had suffered discrimination or suffered abuse from their employer. The way that many of these claims were settled was by ensuring staff accepted a ‘compromise agreement’. This agreement agrees to pay the person who has suffered a lump sum, rather than pursuing the action in court. NASUWT, the largest teachers’ union in the UK, witnessed a 20% increase in the number of claims it won in 2011, netting in £12.6 million in compensation for its members. Of this £12.6 million, £10.8 million was obtained through compromise agreements.

Whilst the figures that have been quoted do seem like a lot of money, and can therefore often be quite misleading, it is important to understand the injury in each individual case. Often, our compensation system in the UK does not just pay out money on a whim – there normally has to be tough, medical proof of lasting injury before you receive a lot of money from a pay out. Take for instance the £200000 that was claimed from slipping on a grape; this individual had an existing hernia problem, and so slipping on that grape exacerbated this condition, and therefore required them to have extensive surgery to fix the problem. It is worth noting that the school had been aware of litter problems and yet had done nothing about them. Due to his injuries the individual suffered chronic pain and had to take 3 years off work, thereby being awarded £200000. When the facts of each case are considered, the figures do not seem quite so ridiculous.

Another example involves the teacher who slipped on a book that had been placed under a mat. That slip resulted in her fracturing her elbow and her wrist. She needed three operations and physiotherapy, and yet she still suffers problems today. The award of £25674 therefore seems proportionate to her injuries. The biggest pay out this year was awarded to a teacher in the sum of £222215, after being struck by a bus door in the head, causing serious brain trauma.

Whilst some of these injuries are related to the school and education environment, and therefore point to someone being held responsible for the health and safety of the teachers and the staff, it should be questioned at what point does it stop being a mere unlucky coincidence that something bad happens to you, and at what point does it start being the school or council’s fault?

Manchester based law firm Donns LLP entered into administration last month. The firm’s personal injury cases have been sold to the rival firm Irwin Mitchell, who will advise current clients. PwC’s Toby Underwood and Robert Hebenton are jointly carrying out the administration proceedings. A total of 42 staff members were made redundant leaving around 2,500 cases in progress.

The Jackson reforms

Donns’ situation might be the reflection of the current climate with the Jackson reforms announced in March last year and putting law firms under more and more pressure. The Justice Secretary confirmed that new legislation would be put in place to give effect to the Jackson reforms, which aim to:

• Stop lawyers from recovering the success fee in conditional fee agreement (‘no win no fee’) cases as well as after the event insurance costs from the losing party

• Raise general damages by 10%

• Cap the success fee at 25% of damages in personal injury cases

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

The Legal Aid Bill is also aiming to cut down the ‘no win no fee’ payments, ban referral fees (earned for referring a potential client) and overall end the so called ‘compensation culture’ allowing people to benefit from minor incidents.

Referral Fees ban

The former Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, accused claims management companies (who usually benefit from referrals), insurance companies and personal injury lawyers of contributing to the ‘referral fee merry-go-round’.

Some argue that the lack of a definition for a referral fee makes it difficult to determine what is actually going to be banned: is an act of outsourcing the marketing of solicitor’s services a referral?

The reoccurring theme in the debate seems to be the fear of personal injury firms being put under a lot of pressure to find work without relying on the business being brought by referrals. Law firms will have to change their strategies and become more efficient to stay competitive.

According to Fran Swaine, a partner in Leigh Day & Co. the significance should be placed on capital, which will be the key when the reforms are implemented. The nature of personal injury claims is such that they give lawyers a long time between starting a case and getting paid, especially in more complex matters.

Benefit of the clients

Whatever the future brings, personal injury firms must make sure that the quality of their work is not being compromised by struggling to survive in the difficult economic climate. Implementing new business strategies to adapt to the new legislation must be conducted bearing in mind the best interests of the victims and potential clients.

Over the last 20 years or so health and safety standards at major events, such as sports, festivals and music concerts, have increased and they have become the number one priority for all event organisers. However there are some events where health and safety is not as high priority as it should be. Whilst many a lesson has been learnt from past accidents, the Institute of Occupation Safety and Health (IOSH) has recently warned that we need to do more. Their advice comes after a number of disasters such as the Love Parade festival in Germany in 2010 where 21 people were killed and after more than 500 people were injured in a human stampede, resulting in the death of a young girl, in a Northampton nightclub in October 2011.

IOSH, which is a registered charity and the chartered body for health and safety professionals, has advised that tighter crowd controls both inside and outside venues need to be introduced at major music and sporting events. They have also urged organisers to provide formal training for all stewards, supervisors and safety officers and to retain all-seater stadiums, particularly for Premier League and Championship football games where there is potentially a high risk of being pushed, trampled or crushed. The announcement is apt considering recent debates about whether terracing should be reintroduced at football matches. (A controversial debate especially when you consider that since terraces have been banned at football stadiums there have been no disasters).

IOSH’s advice comes after they polled 3,000 fans who have attended a major sporting or music event in the last five years. The poll revealed that many of them had been hurt at major events. In fact, more than one in ten people said they had been hurt and a third said they had been caught up in a crowd surge. In total, almost one in three people feared for their safety, with 50% of those blaming overcrowding, 18% citing drug or alcohol misuse, 13% pointing the finger at fighting and 16% blaming the rowdiness of crowds. Nearly two thirds of those who participated in the poll said that were only put at ease by the presence of police officers, security guards and stewards. Only 43% of those interviewed said enough had been done to improve health and safety in sports stadiums since the Hillsborough disaster of 1989, in which 96 people died and 766 were injured as a result of many health and safety issues including poor crowd control.

Event organisers have argued that obtaining enough trained stewards, especially at large events, can be problematic. However, IOSH has urged organisers to invest in comprehensive on-site training for their stewards. They would like to see NVQ level two standard or equivalent safety training of stewards at sports grounds made mandatory, something which is optional in the UK at the moment. They have also advised organisers to be more aware of and to respect capacity and density limits within venues all of which would help to manage and control crowds.

In reality, claims companies are brokers, they spend a lot of money on marketing, obtain details of individuals who may have suffered an injury, will then in some cases analyse the information and suggest to the claimant whether he, she or they may have a strong claim or otherwise, and then sell on the leads to personal injury lawyers for a commission. They operate in a very similar way to mortgage packagers, who appeared out of nowhere some 10 years ago, and have largely disappeared.

With some claims companies, they also obtain leads by having arrangements with garage repairers or insurers or breakdown recovery companies, and obtain leads that way. Frankly, some of the operations, including unsolicited texting, phoning and so on are seen as very hard sell, for what should not be a hard sell situation i.e a personal injury. This is where claims companies have also benefited, in addition to them having some good marketing skills and often budget, they can operate in ways in which regulated law firms may not be able to do, although matters have been recently tightened up and the whole system of personal injury lawyers buying leads from claims companies  looks set to be banned as part of a backlash to a huge increase in bogus or exaggerated personal injury claims.

If you have searched for claims companies and want to speak to personal injury claims solicitors, we suggest you click the above link, which will take you through to Waring Solicitors.

First, the bad news. As indicated n the title to this post, new figures from the Department for Transport reveal that the number of cyclist fatalities in accidents is up 7% and serious injuries are up 12%. Strictly speaking there is no good news to come out of this, but the above figures, tragic though they are, may actually represent a proportionate reduction on overall deaths or serious injuries to cyclists when put into the context that the number of cyclists is rising quite rapidly due to :-

• A renaissance in the popularity of cycling generally
• People saving money due to the economic conditions by cycling rather than using cars or public transport
• Boris Johnson (!)

Statistics show that a rise in accidents involving cyclists is a feature of recessionary economic conditions, based on past surveys conducted in the 1930’s and 1980’s.

In terms of the causes of serious injuries or fatalities involving cyclists, according to the Department for Transport, these are as follows :-

• failing to look properly
•  failure to judge speed or other road user’s intentions
•  attempting to access a road from a pavement
• careless or reckless riding