Public Liability

On both versions of events, the digger driver failed to give the Claimant any warning that he was about to move the dumper truck and that the Claimant may be at risk and provided him no opportunity to get out of the way. Therefore, we issued court proceedings and although liability was in dispute, Levenes were able to obtain £48,000.00 for the Claimant’s injuries and losses. Levenes will always look to see what arguments can be made to secure the best possible settlement.

After the issue of proceedings, the police offered £1,000.00 which was simply a nominal offer for the unlawful entry and wanted the Claimant to see their psychiatrist. Levenes argued that they were prolonging the Claimant’s recovery from her injuries by refusing to accept her case and by putting her through the ordeal of reliving her experience again with their psychiatrist.

When the case was concluded, the client stated: ‘Couldn’t recommend enough. Very professional team who fully understand you, and keep you updated at all process. Very huge thanks to Ewa and Tim for dealing with my case. They will help you on every step, explain the whole process, tell you how much time it takes. My little advice – it’s worth to wait longer and follow their advice as everything they are doing – they are doing it to deal with your case the best as they can.’

Both Defendants denied liability and blamed each other for the collapse of the scaffolding. In this case, after proceedings were issued, both companies agreed to settle the claim jointly. Issuing proceedings had the effect of concentrating the minds of the insurers to consider their position.

The insurers of the homeowner agreed to settle our client’s claim. The owner should have ensured that the dog was properly restrained when he opened the door. Dogs are well known to be territorial and can perceive visitors as a threat to the home. The owner should have known that and not opened the door until the dog was secure.

The issue of proceedings often has the effect of focussing the mind. In this case, one of the Defendants did accept responsibility and this meant that the claim could proceed against them and be discontinued against the others. Due to the complexity of Mr X injuries and some pre-existing conditions Levenes obtained medical evidence from various experts in order to be able to provide evidence of the injuries and their effect upon Mr X.

Levenes have settled the claim of a van driver for a 6-figure sum following an accident during the course of his employment at hotel premises. Who was to blame for injuries that occurred during the course of employment in a public place?