Product Liability
In another case we were dealing with a claim involving a serious fracture to a teenager’s leg, which he allegedly injured due to a defective trampoline that had been supplied by the Insured. The product was the subject of a “Safety Notice” and extra fittings were supplied due to welds failing on the product. These safety fittings were supplied to the Claimant’s family after the incident and they alleged that the accident must have been due to this potential defect. In fact we are arguing that the potential defect was not causative, and more to the point the Insured have now been able to establish that they did not supply this particular product (it was supplied by a competitor when the Insured were having problems with their own supply line).
We acted for Insurers in a Products case where it was alleged that they had supplied a defective water softener to a large Listed country property, which subsequently failed some years after installation allegedly due to defects in the cylinder. The damage was in excess of £500,000. The incident arose due to a “pressure surge” created when Thames Water repaired pipework. There was a great deal of expert forensic evidence and eventually we were able to persuade the Claimants that the water softener was not in any way implicated and that the more likely cause of the loss was merely the over-topping of cold water storage tanks due to the ball-cock valves failing.
The other side abandoned the proceedings and were persuaded to make a contribution of £50,000 toward the defendant’s costs.
Industrial Disease
We have never previously investigated a case involving laboratory animal allergy (LAA) before but recently had the opportunity of doing so at a Research Establishment in Oxfordshire. The Claimant alleges that he had become sensitised through working with laboratory animals and was unable to continue in that employment. Our enquiries revealed that the Insured's working practices were not in order and in particular respiratory face masks. However the Claimant had worked at other Laboratories both before and since his alleged exposure at the Insured's premises and causation very remains an issue here.
‘Taz’
A cross-breed Bull terrier, belonging to the Insured was taken for a walk by an elderly gentleman, the dog had no adverse behavioural habits. The dog met up with other neighbours at a ford and unfortunately the elderly gentleman managed to lose his footing and fall in. Whilst he was being attended to the dogs were generally running around and playing but a visitor who had accompanied locals, an elderly man, suddenly fell to the ground and suffered a massive head injury, resulting in him needing 24 hour care. It was alleged that the dog Taz had knocked him down. Our witness evidence did not support that.
There was a split Trial on liability and it was found that the dog was not involved/there was no liability on the part of the Insured as owner or on the part of the dog handler. The claim had a potential well in excess of six figures
We have been very pleased to be involved in the recent Court of Appeal case of Freeman v Higher Park Farm 2008, which is an extremely useful case for Defendants dealing with Equestrian Liability claims. We investigated matters; it was then successfully contested with the Appeal being upheld, and gives considerable comfort to Defendant Insurers in arguing the ‘Consent to Risk’ Defence.
The Claimant, an experienced rider, booked a hack; she had previously been out on a hack at the Stables so that it was known she was a capable rider. She was told that the horse she was allocated could buck, but she was happy with that and indeed seemed to welcome the challenge. However she was at a later stage bucked off the horse. The claim centred around Section 2.2. of the Animals Act, and in particular the Defence under Section 5.2. “Consent”. Defendant Insurers won the day.
Public Liability
Whilst we are not Marine Adjusters we recently dealt with a case involving Contractors who were burning off sections of an overhead service bridge, they failed to take adequate measures and as a result the barges immediately below were showered with iron filings and debris. The iron filings ate into the paintwork/metal work requiring re-spray of the barges. Unfortunately because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the river the boats require to be craned out for the necessary work to be completed.