Lawford Kidd's Blog

Claimants making asbestos claims may have no legal right to compensation where at the time of exposure levels of protection offered by employers would have been considered adequate, albeit considered negligent by today's standards. In McGregor v Genco, the Court highlighted this point, underlining the importance that all claims must be looked at individually, on a case-by-case basis, and with regard to the overwhelming body of case law in the area.

The Court could not '..accept that during 1976…the defendant should have appreciated that the claimant was at risk of an asbestos related injury and that their failure to appreciate and take what would now be regarded as appropriate precautions or to make enquiries about the nature of the dust was negligent'.

This could be a particularly important point for defendants in legacy claims, especially in Scotland where fatal claims are more expensive than they are in England.  It means that, even where a Claimant’s mesothelioma or asbestosis was indeed caused by exposure to asbestos while in employment with a Defendant - which would satisfy the causation test - the Defendant cannot be held to have acted negligently, where they acted in accordance with the standards at the time.  

Roads in Scotland are becoming safer, according to recently released statistics from Transport Scotland.

The statistics cover reported road accidents where one or more people were killed or injured in 2013. Although the figured are only provisional (final figures are due to be published later in the year), the majority of the findings are encouraging for Scottish road users.

Having falling by 10% to 11,493 between 2012 and 2013, the number of road casualties are now at their lowest recovered level. Of these 11,493 reported road casualties, the number of fatalities dropped by 3% from 178 to 172, serious injuries by 16% to 1,667 and minor injures by 9% to 9,654.

One of the UK’s main health and safety bodies has reiterated its opposition to Government plans to deregulate areas of health and safety.

The Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) is opposed to a clause in the Government’s Deregulation Bill that exempts certain self-employed workers from health and safety law.

The clause suggests that workers will be exempt from health and safety law if they are self-employed, do not employ anyone else, that their activities pose no potential risk of harm to others, and that they do not work in a high hazard or high risk sector (to be designated ‘prescribed’) such as agriculture, construction or gas fitting and installation.

The controversial Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill is to be amended after the Scottish Government agreed not to increase the exclusive competence of the sheriff court to £150,000. Instead, it will be increased to £100,000.

The new threshold of £100,000 was agreed during Holyrood’s Justice Committee's stage 2 consideration of the Bill, despite to pressure from MSPs to have the figure set at either £30,000 or £50,000.

The Government’s concession is perhaps no more than a step in the right direction, with much of Scotland’s legal community – particularly its personal injury lawyers – remaining concerned about the ability of claimants to obtain justice.

A woman who collapsed in north London but had to wait more than 100 minutes for an ambulance has been awarded around £5 million in compensation, the BBC has reported.

The 36-year-old, who was a genetic scientist, sustained brain damage as a result of the delay and now needs 24-hour care.

The delay occurred because her home had apparently been flagged as high risk, and therefore the responding ambulance crew were told to wait for a police escort before going into the property. No police officers were immediately available and therefore the ambulance crew continued to wait just a short distance from the property, despite 999 being phoned on two further occasions.