CRIMINAL FOOLISHNESS?

On 24th April this year, a Mr Anthony Young from Gloucester made a small piece of legal history. He was awarded compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) for injuries he had suffered a year earlier when his motorcycle had collided with a 12 year old boy, Robert Davis, who was playing "chicken" across the A4174 near Bristol.

Mr Young was completely innocent. He was riding well within the speed limit and perfectly properly. He could do nothing to avoid hitting Robert, who died from his injuries. Mr Young suffered serious injuries himself.

We have to assume that there was no insurance policy for the lad which might have provided compensation for Mr Young. There is no doubt that, at the age of 12, Robert knew how dangerous it was to play chicken on a busy A-road, and no doubt that he was negligent in law for doing so; but with no insurance fund at the end of the day, how could Mr Young and his lawyers hope to obtain compensation for him?

The novel answer was to apply to the CICA. This scheme provides compensation for those who suffer "criminal injury", which typically covers attacks where there is no realistic hope of obtaining compensation from the attacker; either because they cannot be identified, or because they have no assets.

Mr Young's solicitors argued that by knowingly running across the road, Robert had committed a "violent act" and that since Mr Young had been injured as a result, he was entitled to compensation from the CICA. The CICA accepted this argument, despite the scheme being quite clear that "criminal injury" means injury directly attributable to "a crime of violence". A CICA spokesman stated that Mr Young "…was the victim of 'reckless' behaviour on the part of the young boy and therefore entitled to a payment." He then went on to deny that this case was a legal landmark, saying that it had always been the case that a motorcyclist injured by the reckless actions of a pedestrian could claim compensation.

That is quite true, but such a claim would up to now have been possible only against the pedestrian personally. What makes this case special is that the CICA seems to have accepted that recklessness (that is, being wholly indifferent to the results of one's actions; or not even applying one's mind to the possible consequences) can be equated with criminal intent as far as the CICA scheme is concerned. Since crossing the road, even foolishly, is not a criminal offence and since it has to be assumed that Robert never intended to injure Mr Young, this new interpretation can only be a conscious decision to extend the scope of the CICA scheme and it will be interesting to see the results. At the very least, it offers a possible route to compensation for innocent victims injured by the recklessness of others, when those others have no assets to make it worth pursuing them personally.

Mike Clarke
Slee Blackwell Solicitors
01237 427921

Fatal RTA

A fatal traffic accident on the southbound M5 in Gloucestershire in April 2005 led to the death of 2 drivers and a particularly tricky claim for the family and other dependents of one of them. For reasons which will remain a mystery, both cars were travelling at speeds well in excess of 100mph, with only feet between them. They came into contact, both went out of control and left the hard shoulder, going down an embankment and hitting some trees. One of the drivers was our client, and he had not bothered to put on his seatbelt. He left behind a girlfriend of 4 years whom he was going to marry in June that year, a young son, his girlfriend's daughter whom he was going to adopt, a former wife with whom he was still on good terms, and a son from that marriage, who still enjoyed his company camping and fishing.
His earning history was patchy and we had hard work to put together a picture of just what his finances really were and how he spent his money between the various members of his families, who all had potential claims for compensation, since they were deprived of the benefit of his income for the future. To the layman, it may seem harsh that the claims of those innocent persons were reduced to reflect the undoubted part the dead man played in his own death, but the law is quite clear on that aspect. If the man had survived and pursued a claim against the other driver for his injuries, his compensation would undoubtedly have been significantly reduced to reflect his own partial blame for (a) driving far too fast; and (b) not wearing his seat-belt. The law states that any claim by a dependent of the deceased has to be reduced in the same way; logically, this must be right, since although innocent, the people left behind should not be in any better position over a claim than the deceased would have been himself.
The insurers of the other driver took a realistic approach in this case, despite the lack of evidence about earnings, and we secured a settlement worth £80,000. Sadly, because of the factors mentioned above, the deal was on the basis that both drivers were equally to blame for the crash, which meant only £40,000, half that overall value, was to be divided up between the dependents. A sad cautionary tale on the dangers of a moment's recklessness.

Exciting times in PI today......

Trussing chickens with elastic string is not "manual handling"- says the court of Session in Edinburgh. Joking apart, the 1992 Regs refer to "transporting or supporting a load" and the court felt that picking up a dead chicken for a moment to truss it did not fall within that definition.

This could have interesting implications for man hand injuries from small, occasional or modest moving of things. If anyone gets a bright young thing from NIG taking this line, I would be interested to know.
Hughes -v- Grampian Counrty Food Group Ltd, Time LR, 04/06/07

BANK TELLER INJURED IN FREAK ACCIDENT

A counter clerk at a North Devon NatWest bank miraculously escaped being blinded when a security device exploded in her face while she was serving a customer in July last year.

Her till contained a "raid bundle" of banknotes, concealing an explosive device and a special dye. Such bundles are designed to be handed to a robber in the event of a raid on the bank; when they are taken past the bank doorway, an electronic signal detonates the charge in the bundle, showering the criminal with dye which stains skin and clothing a bright pink colour.

A bank investigation was inconclusive, but it seems likely that the signal from a mobile 'phone or some other unshielded source operated the detonator, causing the bundle to explode.

Mike Clarke of Slee Blackwell's Bideford office, who is handling her claim, said,

"She was fortunate to be wearing spectacles, which probably saved her eyesight, but she suffered severe contamination of her eyes, acute pain and was unable to bear light for many weeks. We are awaiting expert medical opinion on the injury and hope she will escape any long-term damage. This is a unique accident in my 20 years of injury practice. The bank's insurers admitted liability with commendable swiftness, and both parties are now working towards an amicable settlement of the claim."

Mike can be contacted on 01237 427921; or at 12 Mill Street, Bideford; or at www.sleeblackwell.co.uk

Slee Blackwell fundraisers perform feats of heroism (or at least one does)

Erin Clarke, conveyancing assistant in our Bideford office, has just raised over £500 for Breast Cancer Care and tackled her fear of heights by jumping from a light aircraft at 10,000 feet with only a pocket handkerchief sized parachute for company. We salute her.

Somewhat less heroically Andrew Burke of the Barnstaple Property team raised an undisclosed sum for the Matt Hampson Trust by failing to take part in the Exeter half marathon. Andrew took the tactical decision that an early start to next year's training programme was the way forward, and paid the sponsor money he would have raised instead, in an unsuccessful attempt to deflect abuse.