Category: Claims

Former Specsavers Workers Awarded €12,000 after Wrongful Discriminatory Sacking

A branch of Specsavers located in Letterkenny, Co Donegal has been ordered to pay €12,000 by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) as wrongful dismissal compensation to a Muslim woman who was terminated from her position the day after the Manchester terror attack in 2017.

The WRC ruled that Letterkenny Specsavers Ltd discriminated against Amina Ferrah, using her religion as a basis for doing so. The presiding Adjudication Officer, Ms Emer O’Shea, said she was satisfied on the basis of the proof shown to her that Ms Ferrah’s sacking prior to the standard three-month review constituted less favourable treatment on the grounds of religious discrimination.

Ms Ferrah told the WRC she was let go from her job on discriminatory grounds “as a knee-jerk reaction” to the fact that she was clearly identifiable as a Muslim. She added that her employer “may have been overly concerned about public sentiment following the Manchester terror attack and the impact it might have on their business”.

The Letterkenny branch of Specsavers vehemently denied the discrimination claim and claimed, at the hearing, that the decision to terminate Ms Ferrah’s employment on the spot was purely down to her professional performance in the role.

Adjudication Officers of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) are statutorily independent in their decision making duties as they relate to adjudicating on complaints referred to them by the WRC Director General.

Adjudicating Officer Ms O’Shea commented, in finding that the Specsavers branch did discriminate against Ms Ferrah, that it was accepted by the company that reviews of new employees would take place after an initial period of three months employment.

In this instance, however, there was no official records of any professional reviews taking place to support the company’s contention of ongoing reviews taking place. Neither were there any recorded accounts of any performance deficits registered during the period that Ms Ferrah was employed at Specsavers Letterkenny present to the WRC.

 

Lengthening Delays For Violent Attack Compensation Claims Being Heard

The Irish Examiner newspaper has reported that there is an increasing backlog in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, leaving victims of serious violent attacks waiting years to be compensated.

Since 2012 only 597 payments were made from the 1,357 claims have been submitted. More recently, in 2017 only 31 payments were made to the 181 new applications. In 2018 only 10 victims were compensated by the end of May this year when 73 new cases were registered during that time period.

The details were revealed in the answer to a parliamentary question submitted by Fianna Fáil TD John Curran has now called for an immediate review of the scheme to find out what is causing the hold-ups.

In response to this the Mr Curran TD released a statement which said: “Despite the fact that the number of cases which settle in a pay-out is declining year on year, there are lengthy delays in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal assisting victims of crime in Ireland. As it stands, should this year’s applications be managed in the very same poor manner it’s likely that just 24 cases will be settled in 2018.”

He added: “Victims should expect that they will receive their compensation in a prompt manner and in accordance with constitutional justice. In correspondence I received, the Tribunal itself cited its limited resources and “economic constraints” as contributing factors in the slow process of claims and victims obtaining their due compensation.

“The Tribunal receives roughly €4 million in budget each year, but it is uncertain how this budget is set considering the number of, and types of cases varies year on year.

The TD concluded saying: “A thorough review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal must be carried out before next year’s figure of unsettled claims rises even more. This review could not come quick enough for very many victims of crime or their families.”

You can read the full text of his statement by clicking here.

 

 

 

WRC Awards €5k to Autistic Boy Who Was Told not to Eat Toast in his School Taxi

An autistic teenager who was stopped from eating toast in his taxi to school has been awarded €5,000 from Bus Eireann by The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

The WRC ruled that the company had discriminated against the 16-year-old on the grounds of his disability. As a result of this Adjudication officer Gerry Rooney ordered Bus Eireann to pay €5,000 to the boy. Additionally he directed the operator to make contact with his family without delay.

It was explained to the WRC, in a submission from the boy’s parents, that their son’s dietary requirements meant that he would eat his breakfast of a slice of toast, a banana and fruit juice in the taxi while travelling to school. They added that any changes in the teen’s routine could cause difficulty and serious issues for his development. Bus Eireann denied that it discriminated against the boy.

Bus Eireann contracted a taxi driver from 2015 to transport him to a special needs school. The routine of the teen eating his breakfast in transit was accommodated without no issue. However, on January 27, 2017, the then taxi driver advised the boy and his family that he was buying a new car worth €60,000 and asked that the boy no longer consumed his toast in it.

When advised of this the boy’s father told the taxi driver that such a change would be very distressing change to his teenager’s routine. At this point the parents’ offered to buy the taxi driver a cordless vacuum cleaner but he (the taxi driver) maintained his opposition despite and told the parent that it was a Bus Eireann policy for pupils not to eat on school transport. He said that this was due to health and safety issues.

In response to this the parents communicated Bus Eireann and were ad ised by an inspector that the taxi driver was being reasonable. The inspector advised the parents that the boy would be affored one week to stop eating the toast in the taxi.

In his findings, Adjudicator for the WRC Mr Rooney said: “There was no evidence provided that when the complainant was being reasonably accommodated previously that any soiling of the taxi occurred, or if soiling had occurred in the past that it presented an unreasonable cost to the taxi driver, or the respondent.”

Former Garda Awarded €9,000 for Injuries Sustained During 2013 Workplace Assault

A former Garda has been awarded just €9,000 workplace accident compensation by a High Court judge for injuries he suffered to his lower back and right leg, when he was assisting the arrest of a violent drunk in Cavan during 2013.

Barrister Esther Earley told the Judge Michael Twomey that Garda Gary Tobin, a renowned former rugby player and current junior rugby coach, that Garda Tobin had been on duty in Bailieborough at 3am on 31 January 2013 when he and a colleague arrested a violent drunk and possible drugs user on the town’s Main Street.

While the arrest was taking place he (Tobin) he had been knocked to the ground, injuring his lower back and right leg. He was absent from work for four months off work due to severe back pain before returning to light station duties for a number of months. Upon his return to work his right leg had continued paining him and he still experienced symptoms and still had difficulty putting his socks.

Counsel for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Barrister Kevin Dinneen was advised by that his back had fully recovered after four months but he still experienced intermittent pain in his leg. He said that although his doctor had advised he get physiotherapy he had neglected to do so.

Garda TObin told the Court that, from his experience as a rugby coach, he was aware of how to deal with injuries and had undertaken a self-treatment regime for himself involving exercise after initially having been prescribed anti-inflammatories and muscle relaxants.

Judge Twomey, awarding Tobin €9,000 workplace injury compensation and costs for what he described as soft tissue injuries, told the Court that he (Tobin) had undergone an MRI scan at the time which had shown degenerative symptoms in his back.

 

Girl with Diabetes Awarded €2,260 Compensation due to Concert Staff Confiscating Lucozade

A young Belfast woman with Type 1 diabetes has been awarded €2,260 after security staff at a music concert confiscated her fizzy drink.

Kayla Hanna, 20, had been walking into a Red Hot Chili Peppers concert in Belfast in August 2016 when the incident happened.

The student always carries Lucozade for her blood sugar levels, as she suffers from Type 1 diabetes, but Eventsec Ltd staff removed it, despite her showing them her diabetes tattoo and insulin pack. Miss Hanna said suffered from anxiety and upset during the Red Hot Chili Peppers concert.

She told the court “I stood away from the area near the stage where my friends were because I was afraid something would happen to me and I would not have the Lucozade. This had never happened me at other concerts I went to. I really hope that, now this issue has been brought to light, it won’t happen again to me or other people who live with diabetes.”

Miss Hanna took a case under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland supported her.

The court made ruled that discrimination had occurred and Judge Gilpin stated that Eventsec did not give a reasonable adjustment to its policy of not allowing liquids to be brought into the concert.

Mary Kitson, senior legal officer for the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, said the Act is there to ensure people with disabilities are not denied access to services under any circumstances.

She said “In this case, the company should have made arrangements to ensure that Kayla could have accessed Lucozade during the concert if needed; for example, by directing her to its own medical centre at the venue and providing her with a bottle of Lucozade. That would have been a simple adjustment and would have met her medical needs. The court has ruled that this was a breach of the law and awarded Kayla £2,000.”

€1.8m Wrongful Birth Compensation Awarded Following Incorrect Foetus Test Results

The first ever wrongful birth compensation case in the State has been settled for an interim payment of €1.8m after a mother, who suffers from a rare genetic condition, alleged she was deprived of her right to travel for an abortion.

Her baby was born with the same disabling condition after a prenatal test that was carried on the foetus for that condition came back showing no indication that it was present in the child.

The mother in question told the High Court that she had planned to use her constitutional right to travel to the England for an abortion if the test had shown results showing that her unborn baby had the same debilitating genetic condition. However, her child was deliverd with the this condition and now needs 24-hour care. The mother claims that, based on the test results, she was not allowed informed consent and to make an informed decision in respect of the continuance of her pregnancy.

Legal representative for the mother, Oonagh McCrann SC, advised the High Court that the parents went ahead happily and joyfully with the pregnancy after the normal result was returned on the test. Later, following the birth, they felt considerable shock and grief when they discovered that the rare genetic condition with very significant and profound disability.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross put a barring order in relation to reporting of details that may identify the mother and child publicly. The mother had taken the wrongful birth compensation legal action against the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, and Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Dublin. Complete liability in the case was officially admitted on June 13 2018.

The admission stated that “in the particular circumstances of this case and in light of the outcome of the recent referendum repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution”, liability was admitted and the public policy defence was withdrawn.

Mr Justice Cross, remarking that liability had been admitted, said he felt the result of the referendum was not relevant.

 

Woman Settles Compensation Action over Finger Injury in Dicey Reillys

A High Court action in which a 23-year-old woman claimed she broke her finger when she was ejected from a well-known Dublin bar by security personnel after her friend asked to use the toilets has been settled

Sophie Beardmore, Redford Park, Greystones, Co Wicklow, had taken the personal injury compensation action against Senture Security Ltd, Citywest, Dublin which is no longer in business, and Triglen Holdings Ltd trading as Dicey’s Garden Bar, Harcourt Street, Dublin, alleging she was illegally assaulted on May 19, 2015.

Her legal representatives claimed that the security staff had displayed “an unbelievable overreaction” when there was a “jostle’ with a security man at Dicey’s Garden Bar over using the toilets and Ms Beardmore was grabbed by the arm and flung out on to the street.

The business student suffered a nasty fracture and the index finger on her left hand was in a splint for weeks, while she had difficulty completing everyday tasks such as writing and washing her hair after suffering the injury.

There was an alleged failure to provide properly qualified or trained security personnel at the bar.

Triglen Holdings had denied the Mrs Beardmore’s claims that there was an alleged failure to take any or any reasonable care to see she was safe while lawfully a visitor and patron on the premises and that the security staff were not properly trained.

Mr Justice Anthony Barr was told the case had been settled.

The incident, which was captured on CCTV, happened after Ms Beardmore had gone to Dicey’s bar with a friend and had a pint of cider each and shared another pint. Her friend needed to use he toilet but they were not allowed use the toilet in the smoking area and went to another.

Ms Beardmore’s hand was grabbed by a security person and her friend was also dragged viciously, counsel said, before she was thrown out on to the street and her friend was thrown out following this.

Compensation Payment to Donegal Widow Under ‘Lost at Sea’ Scheme

A Donegal widow, Winifred Byrne, who had secured the Ombudsman’s support for State compensation over exclusion from a Government scheme has finally been sent a cheque for €245,570 in Lost at Sea compensation.

Bruckless resident Ms Byrne has been awarded an ex-gratia payment from Minister for Marine Michael Creed, after a 14-year dispute when she was left out og the “Lost at Sea scheme” to support families who died while working at sea.

Ms Byrne’s lost her husband Francis and her 16-year-old son Jimmy, when they were lost along with three other crewmen after their fishing boat Skifjord perished in 1981.

In 2001, then marine minister Frank Fahey initiated a limited scheme to encourage families who had lost vessels between 1980 and 1989 to stay in fishing, by awarding compensatory “tonnage” .

Despite there being 67 applications through the scheme, only six were selected and 75% of the funds paid were to constituents of the then Minister for the Marine Mr Frank Fahey.

As the scheme had not been widely advertised the Byrne family submitted a complaint in 2004 after their late application had been turned own. Ombudsman Ms Emily O’Reilly found in their favour in December 2009, stating the scheme had been improperly operated. Despite the report being presented to the Oireachtas committee on agriculture in 2010.

Danny Byrne said that his mother had received the payment, and paid tribute to Minister for the Marine Mr Michael Creed, and to former Fine Gael MEP Jim Higgins who had championed the family’s cause over the years.

Matt Carthy, Sinn Féin MEP for the Midlands North West, “I want to extend my congratulations to the Byrne family for the sheer determination and perseverance they exhibited in seeing through their campaign against successive Irish Governments on the Lost at Sea scheme.  I am delighted that they have now finally received the compensation that was legislatively owed to them and hope that this will close what I am sure has been a difficult, and at times frustrating, case.

“The Byrnes, who tragically lost two members of their family, three crew members and their entire livelihood had been fighting against their exclusion from the scheme for over 3 decades.”

15-year-old Woodwork Student Awarded €42,500 Class Finger Injury

A €42,500 School Classroom Injury Compensation award has been made to a teenage boy who cut his finger on a saw during a woodwork class.

The student, Robin Reinplu who is now aged 17, took the legal action against Arklow CBS in Co. Wicklow, following the classroom accident that occurred on January 13, 2016.

Mr Reinplu’s legal representative Michael Byrne SC, said Robin had been using a band saw to cut a piece of wood when he was shoved by another student in the class. Mr Byrne advised the Court that Robin’s finger was cut by the blade of the saw.

Robin, from The Drive, Meadowvale, Arklow, was brought to his family doctor, who referred him for further treatment to to Crumlin Children’s Hospital in Dublin. The injuries he sustained included a two to three centimetre cut on his index finger, and a fracture of his finger tip. Following surgery to repair his nail bed he was left with a six centimetre scar.

After the surgery, Robin was absent school for a number of weeks and underwent a course of hand therapy and, following further review, it was found that he was experiencing a loss of sensation and grip, and a difficulty playing basketball. Additionally, the scar became painful in cold weather, the court was told. 

Taking the legal action through his through his father, Reimo Reinplu, it was claimed that the school was negligent in not taking any safety precautions and did not maintain adequate supervision in the classroom. Due to this Robin was not prevented from being ‘jokingly’ knocked into by a classmate. Along with this the guard on the saw should have been set at a level which would have prevented the boy’s injury.

The case was taken against Edmund Rice Schools Trust, the owner and operator of the CBS school, who denied liability in the matter. 

Judge Kevin Cross approved the offer of €42,500 for school classroom injury compensation.

Injured Tesco Security Guard Awarded €32,000 for Workplace ‘Victimisation’

A Tesco Security Guard has had a €32,000 workplace bullying compensation pay out ordered due to be paid to him by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) overturned at the Labour Court.

The man was working with Noonan Services Group Limited at the Tesco store in Co Limerick, a retail unit 40,000 square feet big.

The initial payout was in relation to a complaint over a dispute the man entered into at the store as he recovered from knee surgery sustained in a workplace accident that occurred at a different place of work.

His work involved a period, during his shift at the Tesco store, sit in a chair at a bank of security cameras in order to oversee the activity in the store.

As part of store policy this chair was taken away in order to tackle ‘shrinkage’. This refers to the stealing of articles from the shop floor. The though was that this would force security staff to walk the aisles instead of sitting at the camera-station.

He complained about this and asked for the chair to be brought back, he says his request was refused. He also presented medical testimony that said standing for the duration of his ten-hour shift he would severely affect his recovery from the surgery on his knee.

In November 2015, he ceased working at the Tesco outlet and did not return to work there.

The WRC had initially awarded him €32,000, €16,000 for loss of wages due to going on extended leave, and another €16,000 due to his alleged victimisation.

Tesco had objected during the hearing on the basis that Noonan’s were employing the man and not Tesco. The initial decision by the WRC adjudication officer stated that it was correct to name Tesco as the respondent as the store exerted considerable command and control over the man, regarding annual leave applications and the delivery of security reports for example.

The retailer claimed argued that Noonan is not an employment agency per se, as had been argued earlier, but is ‘a provider of managed services’. It claimed, successfully, that neither the Temporary Agency Work Act 2012, nor the Employment Agency Act 1971, applied to such providers of managed services.

In line with this the court overturned the original decision to award the man €32,000 in personal injury compensation.

€30k Bowling Alley Injury Compensation Settlement for Boy who Injured his finger as a Toddler

A boy, now aged eight-years-old, who hurt his finger as a toddler when he was holding a bowling ball has settled his bowling alley injury compensation action for €30,000 at the High Court.

The boy, Kaylum Devitt now has a permanent 2cm scar on his right index finger. The bowling ball finger injury compensation settlement was agreed with a full denial of liability, the court heard.

Taking the compensation action though his Mother Natalie, Kaylum Devitt, of Buirg an Ri, Balgaddy, Lucan, Co Dublin, sued XL Bowl Limited trading as Superdome, Kennelsfort Road, Palmerstown, Dublin, due to the accident that occurred on March 18 2012.

In the High Court it was claimed the young boy’s right index finger was lacerated by a bowling ball and he sustained a fracture to the finger and had to have a surgical procedure to treat it.

Additionally, there was also an alleged failure to take any or any adequate precautions for the safety of the child. It was claimed that the bowling ball was allowed to be remain a danger or hazard on the premises. Counsel for Mr Devitt also stated that there was an alleged failure to provide appropriate children’s equipment in circumstances as the bowling alley was safe for children.

XL Bowl denied  the claims were and said it would be argued in court the toddler was not being properly supervised at the time of the incident.

Philip Sheahan SC, representing Kaylum, told the court the little boy was in the bowling alley with his family and that there may be two opposing accounts of what happened and a claim that people were distracted elsewhere at the time that the accident happened.

Mr Justice Anthony Barr, who examined the scar, said the settlement was for an appropriate sum given the extent of the injuries suffered by the young boy.

Playground Accident at Bettystown Caravan Park Results in €975,000 Settlement

A man, now aged 20, who was paralysed from the waist down after falling off a small child’s playground swing in a Bettystown. The judge, referring to the incident as a ‘silly act’ has approved a €975,000 personal injury settlement in relation to the accident.

Liam Daly (20) sustained suffered thea serious spine injury on July 24, 2013. when he fell and landed heavily on his back. Liam fell from the playground swing, designed for toddlers and young children, in the caravan park in Bettystown where the family’s mobile home was located.

John Daly, father of Liam Daly, Nephin Road, Dublin 7, took the compensation claim for the playground accident against Lynch’s Caravan Park, Bettystown.

Bruce Antoniotti SC, legal counsel for Mr Daly, told the court that the Daly family had been holidaying at the caravan park for 10 years with no incident prior to the accident occurring. It was claimed that the cradle seat of the swing rotated to the most extreme arc position and Liam was thrown in the air. Mr Antoiniotti stated that there was not enough done to prevent teenagers form using the swings. The Lynch’s denied these claims as and did not argued that there was contributory negligence as the plaintiff got on a swing which was designed for younger  and smaller children.

He sat on the cradle of the swing in question but, as he swung, he fell back and sustained a very serious spinal injury. Counsel for Mr Daly said that the protective cover on the ground was not ‘state of the art’ but accepted that this was irrelevant as it would not have restricted the injuries suffered by him.

He (Liam) is now wheelchair bound. Despite his injuries Mr Daly has learned to drive a car and is looking for job.

In approving the playground accident compensation settlement Mr Justice Cross Mr Daly was just aged 15 at the time of the accident and the injuries he suffered were the result of a ‘silly act’.

Toxic Chemical Personal Injuries Lead to Death of Air Corps Members’ Children According to Whistleblower Allegations

A protected disclosure alleging that children of Air Corps workers lost their lives due to toxic chemical personal injury at Baldonnel Airfield has been made by a Defence Forces whistleblower.

Previously in 2017 a document was published to the public in which a worker employed by the Defence Forces claimed to have proof of the “the untimely deaths of at least 20 adults…of which I believe died of illness related to unprotected chemical exposure”.

Included in this dossier were evidence that the death of a newborn girl happened due to ventricular septal defect (heart defect), a five year old boy died while having surgery to address a ‘malrotated intestine’ and a girl aged 15 died after contracting Ewing’s sarcoma, a form of cancer and her father is suffering from leukaemia at present.

There have been claims made about the effects of chemical exposure on the wives of members of the defence forces. A mechanic, who previously worked with the Air Corps, noticed that a number of these women had experienced more than one miscarriages and in one particular case, a woman had eight consecutive miscarriages. An independent third party, former civil servant Christopher O’Toole, was appointed by the Minister for Defence in 2016, to investigate the allegations

Leader of Fianna Fáil Mr Micheál Martin said he believes a Commission of Investigation is now necessary. He stated “The situation is far from satisfactory because with his opening comments the report’s author is essentially saying he cannot fulfill the terms of reference. From the Government’s point of view they established this review, they must have known the terms of reference could not be fulfilled. It’s farcical.”

Although the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) have advised that procedures into risk assessment need to be reviewed, a whistleblower has said that these steps are “too little, too late”,especially in the case of those who have lost family members or who have developed life-changing illnesses and injuries.

There have been allegations issued that these deaths are due to organizational failure on the part of the Defence Forces which meant that Air Corps personnel were exposed to toxic chemicals. The Defence Forces are now facing Toxic Chemical Personal Injuries compensation actions by some former employees. The Defence Forces have released a statement stating, “Given these matters are subject to litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

 

 

Personal Injury Compensation of €1,000 Offered for Charleville Show Assault

Judge Seán Ó Donnabháin judge issued a stark warning to a teenager accused of breaking another youth’s jaw in an assault that has resulted in an order to pay €1,000 personal injury compensation.

After no offer of compensation was made at the court heaing last week, Judge Ó Donnabháin advised the accused youth that he would want to “wakey wakey” in terms of compensation.

The youth returned to court yesterday and there was €1,000 offered by way of personal injury compensation according to Legal Counsel for the defendant, Dermot Sheehan. Subsequently the judge adjourned sentencing until November 20 with the accused remanded on bail.

The assault took place at Charleville Show on June 26, 2016 when one young man headbutted the victim to the left side of his jaw and walked away. He, (the defendant) then approached the victim and struck him with a closed fist on the same side of his face. As a result of this the victim suffered a serious injury to his jaw. In the treatment that followed he had to have two plates and splints inserted into his jaw and he also lost some teeth.

Mr Sheehan advised the Court that said the accused, who is not named as he is a juvenile, suffers from health issues. Having read the report produced Judge Ó Donnabháin commented that: “He has not got health issues, he has behavioural issues.”

At the original hearing last week, the judge believed that it was unreasonable for the accused to appear before Cork Circuit Criminal Court with no compensation offer prepared.

Compensation Settlement of €25,000 Aprroved Following Fall in Tayto Park

An injury compensation claim, resulting from a boy (8) falling from a playground tower at Tayto Park in 2012, has been settled for €25,000 in the High Court.

Now aged 13, Conor Bolger of Briarfield Road, Kilbarrack, sued Ashbourne Visitor Centre Ltd, Co Meath trading as Tayto Park, through his father Brian Bolger due the the injuries he suffered in the incident on March 25, 2012. Conor had to undergo surgery to have pins inserted in his lower arm which he fractured near his elbow

Mr Bolger’s Legal team argued that the playground tower was overcrowded and Conor fell due to this. Additionally, they said, the area on the ground surrounding the tower, one of the main attractions in the park at the time of the incident, was not adequately covered by protective wood chips when the fall occurred. It was also alleged that there was not a sufficient system of constant inspections and safety checks implemented at Tayto Park at the time of the incident. Had this been in place it would have been seen that the protection was not adequate at prior to the fall.

He (Conor) fractured his left elbow as a result in the fall and had his elbow was in a cast for a month. Pins were inserted below his elbow during an operation.

David McGrath SC stated that Ashbourne Visitor Centre (Tayto Park) denied the claims and argued that Mr Bolger was climbing the playground tower when he simply “just fell”. Mr McGrath SC claimed that there was no inadequacy with the structure of the tower itself.  Despite this Counsel advised the High Court that the Bolger family were satisfied with proposed settlement of €25,000 for playground accident compensation.

High Court Justice Kevin Cross approved the proposed compensation settlement, commenting that the scar on Mr Bolger’s elbow was not “too upsetting” and that Conor, a basketball player, could have had his enjoyment of the sport damaged due to the injuries experienced.

Advice about Compensation for Noise Induced Hearing Loss

A settlement of injury compensation for noise induced hearing loss should take into account the consequences of the injury on your quality of life.

If you have suffered damage to your hearing due to an employer´s failure to provide a safe environment for you to work in, you will be eligible to claim compensation for noise induced hearing loss. The usual process for this is to apply to the Injuries Board for an assessment of your claim and support your application with a report from your doctor explaining the extent of your injury.

It is also important you communicate the consequences of your injury as well. The Injuries Board can only assess your application based on the information provided. If you fail to mention your quality of life has deteriorated and you have less self-confidence than previously because of your injury, the Injuries Board will be unaware of these factors and not account for them in the assessment of your claim.

The consequences of your injury will have to be supported with documentary evidence wherever possible for the consequences of your injury to be considered in the assessment of compensation for noise induced hearing loss. In many cases this can be difficult, and is why you should seek legal advice from an injury solicitor with experience of submitting applications for assessment to the Injuries Board.

In order to get a full understanding of how your noise induced hearing loss has affected your quality of life, your solicitor will ask you to keep a diary and record the times when your loss of hearing has made a noticeable difference to your quality of life. This may be when you find it hard to watch a film on TV, follow a conversation in a pub, or enjoy an outing with your family.

Your solicitor will help you complete the application to the Injuries Board to ensure these factors are included in their assessment, and to ensure you receive an appropriate settlement of injury compensation for noise induced hearing loss. If you are unable to speak over the phone with a solicitor because of the extent of your injury, you can have somebody call on your behalf or arrange a home visit.

Toxic Chemical Exposure Claims at Casement Airbase

The Journal published an article about toxic chemical exposure claims at Casement Airbase and the effects chemicals had on servicemen and their families.

According to the article, a former Air Corps mechanic has made toxic chemical exposure claims at Casement Airbase to highlight a lack of health and safety procedures. The “whistle-blower” has alleged that servicemen, their partners and their children have suffered illnesses and development issues – and in some cases death – due to exposure to carcinogenic and mutagenic chemicals.

The claims were made under a protected disclosure agreement in an address to Ministers, TDs, senators and a Defence Forces representative. They were supported by documentation claiming twenty former servicemen may have died due to the exposure to toxic chemicals. Five children born with cancer-related conditions or birth defects are also claimed to have died due to their parents´ exposure.

The former Air Corps mechanic told the assembly: “I have come across several personnel whose wives have had multiple miscarriages both in serving and in retired personnel. In one case, a retired member’s wife had eight miscarriages in succession. I am also aware of three personnel who shared in an office in Casement´s engineering wing whose wives all had a miscarriage in the same six-month timeframe.”

The latest toxic chemical exposure claims at Casement Airbase are in addition to six personal injury claims already being made against the Defence Forces by former air corps servicemen. In their claims the former servicemen claim they were exposed to high levels of the restricted substance dichloromethane for up to twelve years despite the Defence Forces being aware of the health risks.

The Defence Forces have also been threatened with prosecution by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) who last year conducted an inspection of the working conditions at Casement Airbase. Among a series of faults at the airbase, inspectors found a failure to conduct risk assessments or provide personal protective equipment to personnel working with hazardous substances.

When asked to comment on the latest toxic chemical exposure claims at Casement Airbase, a spokesperson for the Department of Defence told the Journal an independent investigator was reviewing the claims and there would be no comment until the final report was received and studied. A spokesperson for the Defence Forces told the Journal: “Given these matters are subject to litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

Revised Injuries Board Book of Quantum Soon to be Released

A revised Injuries Board Book of Quantum is due to be released in the next few weeks, with more detail included to assist the accurate assessment of claims.

The Injuries Board Book of Quantum – the guide to compensation for physical personal injuries in Ireland – was originally published in June 2004. Intended to assist with the assessment of personal injury claims in which negligence had been admitted, the Injuries Board Book of Quantum lists a range of injuries and assigns them a financial value according to their severity and permanence.

The guide is not solely used by the Injuries Board. Solicitors negotiate settlements based on the values listed in the Injuries Board Book of Quantum and courts use the guide as a means of determining compensation awards. However, in recent years the guide has been criticised by judges for falling behind the times. Judges have often compensated for the age of the Injuries Board Book of Quantum by increasing awards of personal injury compensation – for which they themselves have been criticised.

Economic factors – such as low interest rates – have not helped matters, especially in the settlement of catastrophic injury claims. Whereas previously, judges would factor in an interest rate of 3%-4% when awarding lump sum payments, most recently they has awarded higher amounts of compensation due to the lack of interest claimants will receive if the funds are deposited in an interest-yielding account.

Now, after months of discussion between the Injuries Board, the Courts Service and senior judges, a revised Injuries Board Book of Quantum is due to be released in the next few weeks. Those who have seen the work in progress say that the values for relatively minor injuries are being increased in line with the increased cost of living, while some reductions are being made in the values for more serious injuries. The values have been apparently calculated based on injury compensation awards in 52,000 cases between 2013 and 2014.

How the revised Injuries Board Book of Quantum will be received is not yet known. Insurance companies – struggling after years of reduced returns from their investments – will likely be dissatisfied with any increase in the value of personal injury claims. Judges might also be unhappy with awarding lump sum compensation awards that fail to ensure the financial security of a plaintiff who has suffered a catastrophic injury.

One thing that all parties should consider is that the Injuries Board Book of Quantum only addresses the personal injuries a plaintiff has suffered. Any verifiable psychological injury or any verifiable deterioration in the plaintiff´s quality of life should also be considered in the settlement of a personal injury claim in Ireland. Because of the likelihood of defendants and their insurance companies relying solely on the Injuries Board Book of Quantum to calculate their financial liabilities, it is advisable to speak with a personal injury solicitor if you have been injured in an accident in Ireland for which you were not to blame.

Employee Awarded Compensation for Falling Down Stairs at Dunnes Stores

A checkout operator from Wexford has been awarded €81,500 compensation for falling down stairs at Dunnes Stores after a hearing at the High Court.

Jean O´Reilly was working as a checkout operator at her local Dunnes Stores in Redmond Square, Wexford, when – on 9th December 2011 – she fell down a flight of stairs due to losing her footing while reading notices on the staff noticeboard.

An ambulance took Jean to hospital, where she received treatment for soft tissue injuries to her back and neck. Jean had to wear a neck brace for six weeks to support her head while she was unable to work, and she also underwent a course of physiotherapy to the damaged soft tissues so that they could recover their strength.

Jean applied to the Injuries Board for an assessment of compensation for falling down stairs at Dunnes Stores, but her employed failed to consent to the assessment being conducted. Jean was subsequently issued with an authorisation to pursue her claim for compensation through the courts, and she sought legal advice.

The claim for compensation for falling down stairs at Dunnes Stores was heard at the end of last week. At the hearing, Mr Justice Raymond Fullam heard that the staff noticeboard was placed too close to the top of the stairs and that there was no handrail along one side of the staircase that would have enabled Jean to arrest her fall before she was injured.

Judge Fullam found in Jean´s favour and said that Dunnes Stores had failed in its statutory duty of care to prevent the risk of injuries to its staff. He awarded Jean €81,500 compensation for falling down stairs at Dunnes Stores, comprising of €65,000 general damages for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity Jean had experienced, and €16,500 special damages for her loss of income and costs she had incurred.

Claim against an Airline for being Scalded by a Hot Drink made in New York

An injury compensation claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink has been made in New York against the Irish airline Aer Lingus.

The claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink was made by the mother of a young boy, who suffered burn injuries “as a result of scalding hot liquid” being spilled on him during a flight from Dublin to John F Kennedy International in June 2014.

The boy´s mother alleges that her son´s injuries were attributable to the negligence of Aer Lingus´ flight crew and that he is now “deprived of his enjoyment of life, pursuits and interests and in the future will be deprived on the same”.

Aer Lingus denies any claims that a member of its flight crew was negligent but, under the Montreal Convention, is liable to pay injury compensation if any passenger suffers any injury during a flight – irrespective of who was at fault for the injury.

Negotiations to settle the claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink are scheduled to get underway later this month and Aer Lingus has requested copies of the boy´s medical records to assess compensation for being scalded by a hot drink the boy may be entitled to.

Another Claim for being Scalded by a Hot Drink already in Mediation

This is the second claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink that has been made against Aer Lingus in recent months. Last August, another claim was filed against Aer Lingus in Jacksonville, Florida, on behalf of a ten-year-old girl scalded when hot tea was spilled onto her during a flight from Dublin to Orlando the previous month.

The girl´s parents are claiming $75,000 compensation from Aer Lingus on the grounds that – prior to her injury – their daughter was a “successful amateur competitive surfer”. The parents allege that the injuries sustained by the girl around her lower torso and upper thighs have caused her to suffer embarrassment and mental anguish as well as physical pain and suffering.

In the claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink, the parents allege that Aer Lingus failed to serve the tea “at a safe temperature” and failed to alert passengers to the “known dangers and the excessive and unreasonable temperature of the hot tea”. They also allege that Aer Lingus failed “to properly train flight attendants of the dangers of serving excessively hot tea to its passengers”.

Aer Lingus is disputing how much compensation for being scalded by a hot drink the girl is entitled to, but her parents are arguing that they will have to spend “great sums of money” on their daughter´s future medical care in addition to how much the accident has already cost them. This claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink is in mediation.

Aer Lingus Settles Previous Claim against an Airline for being Scalded by a Hot Drink

A much earlier claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink – this time in Ireland – has already been settled by Aer Lingus. On this occasion, five-year-old Sophie Gorman from Knocklyon in Dublin was scalded on an Aer Lingus flight from London, when tea placed on the tray in front of her mother spilled onto her leg due to the lid not being properly affixed.

On her daughter´s behalf, Sophie´s mother made a claim against an airline for being scalded by a hot drink. Aer Lingus did not contest the claim and made an offer of €7,000 compensation. In July 2012, the settlement offer was approved by Mr Justice Matthew Deery after hearing that Sophie´s burn had healed considerably after antibiotic cream prescribed by her GP had been applied, but that Sophie had a permanent skin pigmentation irregularity due to her injury.

Court of Appeal Provides Guidance for After the Event Insurance in Ireland

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling relating to security for costs and has provided guidance for after the event insurance in Ireland.

Because of the significant costs of defending a court case in Ireland, defendants can apply to a judge for the plaintiff to deposit a security of costs with the court to ensure that, if the plaintiff is unsuccessful with their claim, the defendant is assured of recovering their legal costs.

The application, if granted, has been used in the past as a strategy to force plaintiffs away from litigation when they do not have the assets to place a security of costs; and consequently more plaintiffs are using after the event insurance in Ireland to protect them from exposure to financial losses.

After the event or ATE insurance is a policy that can be purchased by plaintiffs when they make a claim for compensation. No premium is charged for the insurance policy until the result of the case is known; and usually the premium is only then deducted from an award of compensation.

However, during a High Court case last year, a defendant challenged the legality of a plaintiff to use after the event insurance in Ireland. The defendant claimed that after the event insurance in Ireland was contrary to the common law of champerty – a law that prevents third parties (in this case an insurance company) from providing financial support in a court case that the third party has no direct interest in.

The judge hearing the court case – Judge Hogan – reviewed how after the event insurance in Ireland works, and ruled that the provision of insurance to plaintiffs was not “trafficking in litigation” – the deed that the law of champetry was introduced to prevent – because the insurance company´s exclusive motive in supporting the plaintiff was not to derive a profit.

The judge´s ruling was appealed by the defendant, and arguments for and against after the event insurance were recently heard in the Court of Appeal. In a written judgement from Judge Kelly, the High Court ruling was overturned because the insurance policy in question was “highly conditional” and the insurance company providing the ATE insurance could have avoided payment to the defendant “for a substantial number of reasons outside the defendant’s control and knowledge”.

However, Judge Kelly wrote in his judgement that an after the event insurance policy is a factor for a court to give consideration to in exercising its discretion whether to order security for costs. The judge wrote that after the event insurance in Ireland could be used as a full or partial alternative to security for costs provided that it did not contain terms that would allow the insurance company to avoid payment to the defendant in the event of an unsuccessful claim.

The Appeal Court´s opinion does not make it possible for after the event insurance in Ireland to be used in every circumstance, but it should certainly provide access to justice for many more plaintiffs – particularly in complex personal injury claims that revolve around issues such as medical negligence or breach of professional duty.

Majority Still Using Solicitors for Personal Injury Claims says Departing Injuries Board Head

The outgoing Chief Executive of the Injuries Board has acknowledged that the majority of claimants are still using solicitors for personal injury claims.

Patricia Byron acknowledged the continuing use of solicitors for personal injury claims in an interview published in the Irish Times this morning. Saying that “people still think that they need to go to a solicitor to send in a claim”, Ms Byron said that she was unsure whether that was due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of the Injuries Board system.

She went on to explain that the Injuries Board system is paper-based, with no oral or adversarial presentations required. When assessing a claim, Ms Byron stated, the Injuries Board does not take into account whether the claim has been sent in by a person with no legal training or whether the claimant has used solicitors for personal injury claims.

“It is an administrative process” said Ms Byron, who is stepping down from being the Chief Executive of the Injuries Board after ten years in charge. During that ten years, the Injuries Board claims to have delivered more than €1 billion in savings, reduced the cost of many personal injury claims in Ireland and reduced the time it takes for a claimant to receive compensation from three years to a little more than seven months.

However, the most recent figures released by the Injuries Board tend to support Ms Byron´s statement that the majority of claimants are still using solicitors for personal injury claims.

Only 39% of Personal Injury Claims Resolved by Injuries Board

Of 31,576 applications for assessment received in 2014, just 12,420 personal injury claims were resolved via the Injuries Board system. Not all of the remaining 61% of personal injury claims were resolved by solicitors, but those with liability issues or disputes over how much compensation the Injuries Board had assessed a claim for would have needed litigation to be settled.

Other claims (unfortunately) would have been resolved by third-party capture – where an insurance company makes an unsolicited approach to a claimant with a low offer of compensation in return for a quick settlement – while some claims will have dropped out of the system if the claimant did not have a genuine claims for compensation and gave up on their claim once liability was rejected.

Solicitor Defends Professional Guidance with Personal Injury Claims

In the Irish Times article, a representative from Dublin law firm Tyrrell Solicitors was invited to add his own perspective to Ms Byron´s admission that the majority of claimants were still using solicitors for personal injury claims. Roderick Tyrrell likened making personal injury claims to cutting your own hair, fixing your own leaking pipe or repairing a car engine.

Mr Tyrrell acknowledged that the Injuries Board provided a service for straightforward low-level claims, but when cases become more complex and there are “potential stumbling blocks” – like the value of a personal injury claim or identifying the legal entity against who to make a claim – claimants, insisted Mr Tyrrell, need guidance.

Ombudsman Told to Review Decision for Couple Disputing Mortgage Interest Rate Increase

A High Court judge has told the Financial Services Ombudsman to review a decision it made against a couple disputing a mortgage interest rate increase.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan handed down his instruction to the Ombudsman in a recent case – Millar -v- Financial Services Ombudsman – which had been brought by Kenneth and Donna Millar of Portmarnock, County Dublin, after a complaint made by the Millars against Danske Bank had been rejected by the Ombudsman.

In their complaint, the Millars had claimed that their lender was in breach of contract by raising the mortgage interest rate on their six investment mortgages and a mortgage on their family home at a time (November 2011) when the Central European Bank was reducing interest rates to an all-time low.

The Millars said that – under the terms of their mortgage agreements – Danske Bank was only supposed to raise or lower the interest rate on their mortgages “in line with general market interest rates”. However, when the Millars started disputing the mortgage interest rate increase, they were told by Danske Bank that the European Central Bank´s interest rates were irrelevant.

The Millars also claimed that at the time they had taken out their variable interest rate mortgage, the information provided to them stated “When interest rates go down your monthly payments do likewise. However, when interest rates rise, your monthly payments will increase too”. Although their mortgages had been taken out with the National Irish Bank, they expected the Danske Bank to honour their contract after the National Irish Bank was rebranded.

The Ombudsman reviewed and rejected the Millar´s complaint it on the basis that the contentious clause in their mortgage agreements stated that the bank would amend the mortgage interest rate “in response to market conditions” and not “in line with general market interest rates”. The Ombudsman also supported the bank in its assertion that it was not obliged to release details of how risk assessments were conducted on Kenneth and Donna Millar.

The Millars continued disputing the mortgage interest rate increase, and their case went to the High Court where it was heard by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan. Judge Hogan disagreed with the Financial Services Ombudsman´s rejection of the Millar´s complaint because the text of the clause in question was ambiguous in the “general factual background against which the contract was entered into”.

The Judge dismissed the Ombudsman´s rejection of the Millar´s complaint and told the Ombudsman to conduct another review of the complaint against Danske Bank “in a manner not inconsistent with this judgement”.

What are the Consequences of Judge Hogan´s Verdict?

The consequences of Judge Hogan´s verdict could have a significant impact on Ireland´s estimated 207,000 property owners that have variable interest rate mortgages like the Millar´s – albeit subject to a contentious clause existing in their mortgage agreements.

Although Mr Justice Gerard Hogan did not agree that Danske Bank were in breach of contract or instruct the lender to reveal how the Millars were assessed, the potential exists for thousands of homeowners to start disputing a mortgage interest rate increase knowing that there is an alternative course of action if the Ombudsman rejects their complaint.

If you are one of the 30 percent of the Irish mortgagors that have a variable interest rate mortgage, and you would like to find out more about disputing a mortgage interest rate increase, you are invited to call our 24 hour helpline to speak with a solicitor experienced in the financial services sector. Calls to our helpline are totally free, totally confidential and totally without obligation on you to act on any of the advice we provide.

EU Flight Delay Compensation Rules Clarified by Court of Justice

The Court of Justice in Luxembourg has clarified EU flight delay compensation rules about how the arrival time of a delayed flight should be recorded.

When the original EU flight delay compensation rules were originally enacted in 2004, there were a number of elements that were absent from the legislation. One such element was how the arrival time of a delayed flight should be recorded.

This is an essential part of the EU flight delay compensation rules because flights can depart more than three hours later than their scheduled departure time, but make up time in the air and arrive at a destination less than three hours later than the scheduled arrival time.

Flight delay compensation is only payable when a flight arrives at its destination three hours or more later than its scheduled arrival time, but there have been some disputes over what constitutes the arrival time of a flight – with airlines claiming it is when the wheels of the aircraft touch the tarmac of the runway.

However, any passenger who has arrived at a busy airport will be aware that there can be a considerable passage of time before they can disembark; and clarification of the EU flight delay compensation rules was recently sought by a group of passengers who experienced a late arrival on a Germanwings flight from Salzburg to Cologne/Bonn.

Germanwings refused to pay flight delay compensation as the wheels of the aircraft touched down 2 hours and 58 minutes later than the plane´s scheduled arrival time. The dissatisfied passengers joined forces, and took their claims for delayed flight compensation to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

At the hearing, the judges ruled that the arrival time of a delayed flight should be recorded as the moment the first door is opened to allow passengers to disembark – resolving the claims in favour of the Germanwings passengers and clarifying another element of the EU flight delay compensation rules.

Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme will Delay Receipt of Compensation Settlements

The introduction of the Department of Social Protection´s “Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme” will delay receipt of compensation settlements due to the additional processes involved.

 The “Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme” is a new scheme introduced as part of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013 that comes into force on Friday 1st August and which allows the Department of Social Protection (DSP) to recover selected welfare payments made to recipients of personal injury compensation.

The scheme will have no impact on how much compensation plaintiffs will receive – as under the current system welfare payments are deducted from settlements of compensation for loss of earnings – but it will delay the receipt of compensation from insurance companies, who have to go through an elaborate procedure in order to satisfy the new regulations.

Under the Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme, insurance companies – or other parties responsible for paying injury compensation settlements – are required to apply for a statement from the DSP pertaining to the value of certain welfare payments a plaintiff has received in the previous five years. This statement should be released to the compensator within four weeks.

Thereafter, the compensator must then release the funds to the DSP and wait for a “recoverable benefits certificate” to be returned before making payment to the plaintiff. Depending on the efficiency of the DSP´s administrators, the delay in receipt of compensation payments could be as long as three months.

Copies of the benefits statement will also be sent to the plaintiff and the Injuries Board (in cases where the Injuries Board have completed an accepted assessment) detailing the deductions that are to be made under the Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme – the “Certain benefits” being:

  • Disability Allowance
  • Invalidity Pension
  • Injury Benefit
  • Illness Benefit
  • Partial Capacity Benefit
  • Incapacity Supplement

It is important for a plaintiff to know it is not their responsibility to make payments themselves to the DSP and that an appeals procedure exists in the event that the value of welfare payments is contested. If there is any confusion over the Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme, it is recommended to speak with a personal injury solicitor.

Court Finds Couple Negligent in Dog Bite Injury Claim for Compensation

The High Court has found a Kilbeggan couple negligent in a dog bite injury claim for compensation brought against them by their postman.

Joseph Dunne (63), also from Kilbeggan in County Westmeath, was delivering letters to the home of  Olive Dalton and Martin Maher of Dublin Road, Kilbeggan when, on 8th October 2008, the couple´s husky-type dog escaped from their garden through a hole in the hedge and attacked him.

Joseph was knocked to the floor by the dog, and endured a terrifying attack while the dog continued to claw and bite him. Fortunately a passer-by was able to halt the attack by striking the dog across the back with a stick and an ambulance was called to take Joseph to hospital.

At the hospital, Joseph received twenty-two stitches for lacerations to the right side of his face and received treatment for nerve damage to the right side of his forehead. When the stitches were removed, it was necessary for Joseph to undergo plastic surgery to disguise his scars.

After seeking legal advice from a solicitor, Joseph made a dog bite injury claim for compensation against Ms Dalton and Mr Maher – alleging that they had been negligent in failing to enclose their garden securely and for not informing An Post of the potential dangers of delivering post to the property.

The couple denied their liability for Joseph´s injuries and the case went to the High Court in Dublin, where Mr Justice Michael Moriarty was told that the dog had been put down on the day following the attack.

After hearing evidence from both parties, the judge found in Joseph´s favour, and awarded him €55,000 in settlement of his dog bite injury claim for compensation – commenting that Joseph had been brave to return to work so soon after what must have been a particularly frightening event.

Post Traumatic Stress Compensation Offered to Airplane Crash Survivors

Survivors of the San Francisco airplane crash last month have been offered $10,000 post traumatic stress compensation from the airline company.

Three passengers died in the crash at San Francisco International Airport on July 6th, when a Boeing 777 carrying passengers from Seoul misjudged the height of a seawall on the perimeter of the airport and crash-landed on the runway. Forty-nine of the 181 passengers taken to hospital that day still remain in a serious condition, with doctors fearing that the spinal injuries suffered by some could become a permanent disability.

The offer of post traumatic stress compensation offered by Asiana Airlines will be paid to all of the 288 survivors who were travelling on the plane – whether they suffered a physical injury or not – and is not conditional on passengers waiving their right to claim further personal injury compensation for a plane crash under the terms of the Montreal Convention.

Under the Montreal Agreement, any airline carrier is automatically liable for injuries sustained by a passenger while travelling on an airplane, however US citizens will be entitled to far higher settlements of compensation due to their own national legislation than other nationalities once the investigation by the US National Transportation Safety Board (USNTSB) into the cause of the crash is completed.

Final settlements of plane crash injury compensation may take many months to determine, for as well as the possibility of spine injuries deteriorating into a permanent disability, it may be the case that passengers may be eligible for further payments of post traumatic stress compensation if a high degree of psychological injury is diagnosed once the USNTSB´s investigation is completed.

Hit and Run Compensation For Another Cyclist

After the news of a catastrophically injured cyclist who last month received compensation for a hit and run accident, another cyclist has been awarded hit and run compensation after the car driver that knocked him from his bike was traced and charged with reckless driving.

Jack Dixon (59) was cycling his bike from his local station to his home in Great Waltham, Essex, during a September evening in 2010, when a car cut left immediately in front of him to avoid some temporary traffic lights that were situated directly ahead. The car struck the front wheel of the cycle with force, and sent Jack tumbling onto the road – leaving him with a fractured shoulder blade and a dislocated shoulder.

The motorist speeded off, but a bystander who had witnessed the accident gave chase and was able to take down the car´s registration number. Police and solicitors acting on behalf of Jack were eventually able to track down the reckless motorist, who accepted liability for accident and Jack´s injuries. The solicitors got in touch with the driver´s insurance company, and a settlement of 11,000 pounds hit and run compensation was negotiated.