Exciting Developments at Gildeas: Five Changes To Our Business
At Gildeas Solicitors, we believe that continuous improvement is key to providing our clients with the highest standard of service. In line with this commitment, we are pleased to discuss a series of significant changes we’ve taken at our firm, aimed at modernising our operations and enhancing your experience with us.
Introduction of a change management framework to review performance
At the beginning of our change management project, we decided upon several goals; to improve the customer experience, reduce lifecycles, improve our claims practices and increase efficiencies. To do this, we set about updating our best practice guidance and modernising our claims management system to meet the requirements of the business.
To further improve our operations, we’ve introduced a robust change management framework. This will allow us to systematically review our performance and implement improvements where necessary. By fostering a culture of reflection and adaptability, we aim to ensure that our processes remain effective and aligned with our strategic goals.
Implementation of multiple systems driven innovations to streamline our approach to claims
Using access to increased levels of data, we were able to identify areas of the business that were working well and implement those practices across other departments.
We developed bespoke system solutions which integrate and improve all Management Information (MI) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) optimising our claims process to align with our strategic objectives.
We were also able to pinpoint areas of the business that required modernisation and set about implementing improvements which have had a positive effect on the customer experience and journey. By aligning our procedures with our overarching goals, we can deliver a more consistent and transparent experience.
Modernisation of our claims management procedures to align with our goals
We introduced improvements to our claims management system which have had a positive impact across accounting, claims, and management processes.
Our focus on improving our claim management system and reporting has allowed us to leverage data-driven insights, ensuring that we remain responsive to our client’s needs.
Complete overhaul of office and home-based IT hardware systems
We’ve undertaken a comprehensive upgrade of our office and home-based IT hardware systems, including new laptops, phone systems, and software. These adaptations have included a whole-system migration, and significant changes to our infrastructure. We continue to develop our client-facing operations, with development underway on our websites, branding, and social media.
This overhaul not only ensures that our team has access to the latest technology but also enhances our ability to manage claims efficiently and securely. By investing in state-of-the-art IT infrastructure, we’re better equipped to respond to our client’s needs and adapt to the fast-paced legal landscape.
Ongoing review of our best practice to improve the customer journey
Finally, we are committed to the ongoing review of our best practices to continuously improve the client journey. We understand that the legal process can be daunting, and we aim to make it as seamless as possible. By regularly assessing and refining our practices, we ensure that every interaction with our firm is positive and productive.
Our Director, Lindsay Hare and Senior Claims Manager, Danny Thomson have been leading on the project. Of the developments, Danny said:
“The project has been running for 18 months. We are delighted with the improvements that we have implemented so far, and we are excited about the next stages of the development which we are confident will continue to help the business improve.”
Conclusion
These changes mark a significant step forward for Gildeas, reflecting our unwavering commitment to enhancing service delivery and meeting the evolving needs of our clients. As we continue to implement these innovations, we are confident that they will lead to a more efficient, transparent, and satisfying experience for everyone who engages with our firm.
We invite you to stay connected with us as we navigate this exciting journey. Whether you're a current client or considering our services, we welcome your feedback and are eager to assist you with your legal needs. Explore our website for more information on how these advancements can benefit you, and don’t hesitate to reach out to us with any questions or to discuss how we can support you.
Gildeas Solicitors is a recognised law firm specialising in personal injury claims, supporting you throughout Scotland from our offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh. We’re passionate about what we do, whilst putting our clients’ interests first. That’s why we make personal injury personal.
Friday Rule: What is the Personal Injury Discount Rate and What It Means To You
The latest in our Friday rule series - from Ailie Brown, Trainee Solicitor at our Edinburgh office.
The Government has introduced recent changes to the Personal Injury Discount Rate, or Discount Rate. We break down what this all means, and why it matters.
What is the Discount Rate?
The Discount Rate is a figure used to help calculate how much defenders have to pay in higher value cases.
The Discount Rate is set as a percentage. It is a devolved matter, so it can differ between different parts of the UK. We will be discussing the rate in Scotland.
When personal injury cases settle, there is usually a lump sum payment made to the injured person – including on cases where their injuries or losses are very serious and going to continue into the future, or permanently. A Discount Rate is used to try and ensure that pursuers are compensated properly and to avoid over-compensating and under-compensating people. Most large damages awards are invested – and over time, that investment will generate returns. Those future returns need to be factored in when deciding on the lump sum.
For example, if the Discount Rate is a low figure, that would anticipate future investment returns will be smaller and so will mean a higher lump sum payout is required to last the person until e.g. retirement. A higher Discount Rate suggests the investment will generate a higher return, indicating that the claimant will need a lower lump sum to cover their future financial needs.
Gildeas Director, David McKee explained: “When the Discount Rate was first introduced, it was assumed pursuers would invest in low-risk assets, such as government bonds – which seems sensible as most people would not wish to take risks with money that is intended to last them years or even decades into the future.”
In the government’s 2024 review, they have revised the assumptions made about how lump sums are invested. The default position now is that the investment will be assumed to be in a more diverse investment portfolio as per the example below:
| Asset Class: | Percentage Allocated: |
| Cash or equivalents | 10% |
| Nominal gilts | 15% |
| Index-linked gilts | 10% |
| UK equities | 7.5% |
| Overseas equities | 12.5% |
| High yield bonds | 5% |
| Investment-grade credit | 30% |
| Property | 5% |
| Other types, e.g., infrastructure, commodities, hedge funds, and absolute return funds | 5% |
Previous changes to the Discount Rate
The rate in 2001 was set at 2.5%, which reflected the economic conditions at the time, meaning that pursuers could expect reasonable returns on low-risk investments. This remained unchanged for some time, even through difficult economic times such as the global financial crisis in 2008.
Eventually, the rate was updated in 2017 to – 0.75% (negative 0.75%), which was a notable change. This meant higher compensation awards for pursuers, but the returns being generated were expected to be lower.
Finally, in 2019, the Damages (Investment Return and Periodical Payments) (Scotland) Act was introduced which formalised a new way to calculate the Discount Rate. This introduced a new process to review it every 5 years.
The 2024 Review to the PIDR
In June 2023, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland issued a consultation on whether changes should be made to the rate. The rate was reviewed by economic and financial experts, legal experts, and the government.
It was subsequently changed to +0.50%, to reflect current economic and market conditions.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
Understanding how a change to the Discount Rate could affect your claim might seem complicated. There are various factors considered which affect the actuarial tables and figures used: e.g. current age; expected retirement age; life expectancy; employment status; educational background, and so on.
A worked example might be a better way to understand the difference a change to the Discount Rate can make. Imagine a 45-year-old man who was earning £30,000 per year before his accident, expecting to retire at 65.
Using the previous rate of -0.75%, the actuarial tables produce a multiplier of 20.87, so the lump sum that pursuer might have expected to receive would be:
£30,000 x 20.87 = £626,100.
However, using the new rate of +0.50%, the actuarial tables produce a multiplier of 18.43, so the calculation changes to:
£30,000 x 18.43 = £552,900.
As we can see, the client would be awarded £73,200 less than before due to the new +0.50% rate being in place.
These figures are a simplified example and don’t consider all the factors which could make a substantial difference to the final claim.
Conclusion
The Discount Rate is not consistent across the UK, and the old rate was not reviewed for some time. However, Northern Ireland also recently updated its rate to +0.50% and a review is in progress in England & Wales.
Overall, changes to the Discount Rate are designed to ensure pursuers are properly compensated – and to avoid over or under compensation – by taking into account the prevailing economic circumstances at the time.
There is now a mechanism in place to make sure reviews are undertaken at least every 5 years, so we should not see situations where a review doesn’t take place for 16 years.
Established in 1989, Gildeas Solicitors is a Scottish law firm that specialises in personal injury claims, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We make personal injury personal. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles. Considering our services? Call our dedicated New Claims team to make the process easy for you at 0141 331 6070.
New law means self-driving cars could be on our roads by 2026
Self-driving vehicles have the potential to revolutionise transport. But are we really ready for this innovative technology? As the government introduced the new Automated Vehicles Act 2024, read on to see how Gildeas Solicitors break down the new legislation and what it means for road safety.
Westminster reported that self-driving vehicles could be on the roads by 2026, as the new Automated Vehicles (AV) Act became law in May 2024.
What is the Act?
The Act is extensive, defining automated vehicles and several regulations for their use on roads in the UK. Here’s a breakdown of some of the main points:
➤ The Act legally defines who would be liable for automated vehicles, naming this person as a “user-in-charge”. Specifically, the user-in-charge is “an individual who can exercise control of the vehicle but who is not controlling it, when the vehicle is an authorised automated vehicle with an authorised user-in-charge feature and that feature is engaged”.
➤ Fundamentally, the Act states that users-in-charge must be fully trained and sober – even when driving in fully automated modes. This ensures they can resume control when needed.
➤ The Act sets up an authorisation scheme for automated vehicles, establishes an independent incident investigation function, and ensures traffic regulation data is available for these vehicles.
➤ A key focus of the Act is road safety. The Act sets safety parameters for self-driving vehicles to be at least as “careful and competent as a human driver”. It introduces an approval system, where vehicles will be expected to undergo a technical safety assessment, including the cybersecurity of the vehicle.
➤ The Act prohibits misleading practices such as vague advertisements, and lists specific terms for marketing, for example the term “fully self-driving” which is currently used by some automated vehicle manufacturers.
Former Transport Secretary Mark Harper said:
“Britain stands at the threshold of an automotive revolution and this new law is a milestone moment for our self-driving industry, which has the potential to change the way we travel forever. While this doesn’t take away people’s ability to choose to drive themselves, our landmark legislation means self-driving vehicles can be rolled out on British roads as soon as 2026, in a real boost to both safety and our economy.”
What this means in practice
The law is still new and further legislation is expected to be announced. At the moment, practices are similar to non-automated vehicles: establishing whether or not the user-in-charge was in control of the vehicle at the time of an accident is critical in establishing liability. This is where further legislation is required. For example, information on Road Traffic Accidents where an automated vehicle has been involved should immediately be made available to insurers so that liability can be established and decisions made.
Further concerns exist in terms of how insurers treat cyberattacks on automated vehicles, and whether this would be dealt with as a claim. There is also a gap in the law in terms of uninsured self-driving vehicles.
Mixed awareness and understanding
In studies conducted by the Department for Transport, 99% of people reported being aware of automated vehicles but more than half reported that they knew nothing about them. In particular, people reported feeling unsure how automated vehicles would interact with human-driven vehicles during a ‘transition phase’, and what additional benefits they would bring over and above what could be provided by existing transport options.
Richard Cuerden, Director at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), said:
“The promise is more accessible, safer and greener journeys for goods and people, and at TRL we are working hard to ensure that this is delivered. The commercial success will only be possible if the public has trust in the technology and chooses to use AVs. Here, safety is key and we are working hard to develop safe engineering and system requirements, and in parallel recognising that it is as important to provide public confidence.”
What this means for you
As of now, the specifics of liability as to who is at fault between the vehicle and the user-in-charge remains difficult. We at Gildeas Solicitors will be paying close attention to the details of such cases and how the new legislation is being interpreted and applied practically. Our team will be well-informed to advise anyone involved in an accident in or with an automated vehicle.
Ultimately, while there is overall excitement among the public about the introduction of automated vehicles, more needs to be done before the technology and services are fully understood, considered safe enough to use, and are trusted by members of the public.
Established in 1989, Gildeas Solicitors is a Scottish law firm that specialises in personal injury claims, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We make personal injury personal. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles. Considering our services? Call our dedicated New Claims team to make the process easy for you at 0141 331 6070.
Five Things We Learned From Our First Annual Staff Conference
Established in 1989, Gildeas Solicitors is a Scottish law firm that specialises in personal injury claims. Following recent changes to the business, we held our first ever Annual Conference on Tuesday 27th August, 2024.
Read on to learn how we’ve grown and scaled as a firm, developed new best practices and processes, and how insights from industry leaders have informed our work.
Claims perfection
Directors, Colin Ferguson and Sanjeev Bali kicked us off for the day. Mr Bali detailed how Gildeas has adapted to external pressures in recent years, such as flexible working during the pandemic, and acknowledged the support from the firm during personal highs and lows. Recognising the challenges the pandemic presented to Gildeas, he highlighted how returning to the office has had a positive effect on the business.
Director, Colin Ferguson:
“These changes and improvements to our practices have only been possible thanks to the hard work and commitment of all staff members.”
Mr Bali also introduced Business Development Manager David Butler, who alongside Jim Muir, will be spearheading the formation of our new one-stop shop for accident management. David has an outstanding background in the automobile industry, and we are delighted to have both under the Gildeas umbrella.
1. Our tools change us
Taking us through the recent developments Gildeas have implemented was Vidisha Joshi. Vidisha began with an overview of her extensive background as a solicitor and subsequent experience as a developer, making her well-placed to advise Gildeas in improving our practices.
A focal point was her discussion of innovation in our technological processes. Vidisha relayed her recent involvement with the firm, detailing that a new Working Group was created to audit our processes. After extensive feedback from our claims handling teams, their findings discovered that our claims management system has not been used to its maximum potential.
“We humans coevolve with our tools. We change our tools and then our tools change us.”
Significant takeaways from Vidisha’s insights were how important it is to continuously be critical of our processes, and that seamless integration across the firm is fundamental to achieve success.
2. Change a little at a time
As part of the Working Group supervising these changes, we heard further insights from Director, Lindsay Hare on the capabilities of our software and where our processes have been updated. Lindsay announced that our new Best Practice Guide has now been completed, a real achievement after some time in development.
Of particular interest was our renewed focus on litigation and ensuring the client journey is as smooth as possible. Remarking on the firm’s continued progress, Lindsay emphasised the effectiveness of building good habits incrementally, quoting the author James Clear:
“If we can get 1 percent better each day for one year, we'll end up thirty-seven times better by the time we’re done.”
3. Best practices in analysis and reporting
Further to addressing the recent changes to our internal processes, we then looked externally to hear insights from industry leaders. Clinical Director and Occupational Therapist, Helen Buri presented us with an overview of how her firm completes a functional capacity evaluation reports for clients. Helen relayed best practices in reporting, emphasising the need for analysis to be succinct and added that we should always think of the Judge as the end point reader of injury reports.
It was especially useful to hear how researchers at her firm take into account the current labour market and projected economic circumstances for a claimant when making recommendations.
4. Building your case theory, or what you need to prove to succeed in court
Well refreshed, we returned after lunch to hear from Advocate and personal injury specialist, Tom Mulhall. Tom engaged us with a body of knowledge on case theory, citing several examples of claims where evidence was crucial in the result. His recollection of the details surrounding one tragic case was especially heartfelt, giving us all time to reflect on the human aspects of our industry.
Tom’s recent history includes a number of maritime cases, and a notable feature of his presentation was the maritime tracker used as evidence in his work.
5. Bracing for impact
Rounding off our fantastic guest speakers was Consultant and Orthopaedic Surgeon, Mr Rahul Kakar. Mr Kakar presented us with a thought-provoking overview of the process behind medical assessments of personal injury claimants, including in-depth insights into whiplash associated disorders. Worthy of note was that the psychological effects of an accident and the socioeconomic background of claimants is fundamental in Mr Kakar’s assessments.
After detailing the circumstances of low velocity impact accidents, a lively discussion followed giving much of us food for thought. Mr Kakar highlighted that even in cases where there is little by way of vehicle damage, a client may still suffer from whiplash as the muscles in the body brace for a collision.
Questions then followed on clients who have recovered from their symptoms during the litigation process, and best practices for solicitors when met with claimants who are facing difficulty accessing medical care.
Making Personal Injury Personal
The conference was closed with comments from our Director, Stephen Hay who emphasised the changes we are making are for the benefit of both colleagues and clients. Our case management system is not going to take away jobs from our colleagues. It will free them from repetitive admin type work on cases. For clients, it will allow us to provide an even better level of customer service. He also returned to Gildeas motto of Making Personal Injury Personal - something that no amount of AI or a case management system can do.
In conclusion, our recent staff conference was more than just a meeting – it was a powerful reminder of the dedication, expertise, and teamwork that drive our firm forward. We had the opportunity to reflect on our successes, share valuable insights, and set our sights on future goals.
As we continue to grow in an ever-changing legal landscape, the energy and commitment demonstrated by our team reaffirm our position as a reputable force in the personal injury field in Scotland. We’re excited to carry the momentum from our conference into our work, ensuring that our clients receive the exceptional service and results they’ve come to expect from Gildeas.
Gildeas Solicitors make personal injury personal. With offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh, we specialise in road traffic accidents, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles. Considering our services? Call our dedicated New Claims team today on 0141 331 6070.
Tragic Motorcycle Accident Survivor Compensated £5.9 Million
A retired medical physics engineer has accepted an offer of £5.9 million in compensation following a devastating motorcycle accident. The accident, which resulted in multiple severe injuries, has drastically changed the course of his life, but with the help of Stephen Hay from Gildeas Solicitors and medical professionals, he is now able to look forward to a more secure future.
Stephen applied his usual bespoke service for Mr Allum. After being given initial details by Mr Allum’s family he met with him in hospital and discussed things with his family to assist following his accident.
The Accident Circumstances
The accident occurred while Mr. Allum was in Scotland, celebrating a 60th birthday celebration. The collision left him with a fractured vertebra, multiple breaks in his legs and arms, and broken ribs. These injuries were so severe that he was placed into an induced coma for a period of time.
Mr. Allum was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, known for its expertise in spinal injuries, which are unfortunately common in motorcycle accidents. Many motorcycle accident survivors suffer back injuries, and Mr. Allum was no exception. He remained in the hospital for three months, receiving intensive care and treatment.
Ongoing care and rehabilitation
During his recovery at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Director Stephen Hay visited Mr. Allum, ensuring he knew what would be needed for him to receive the best possible care on discharge. Once his condition stabilised, Mr. Allum was transferred to a local facility in England, closer to his family home in South East.
Mr. Allum's domestic situation required significant adjustments. The family home was unsuitable for someone needing round-the-clock care and a powered wheelchair. Standing at 6’7, Mr. Allum's wheelchair had to be customised, which also limited the types of vehicles that could be adapted for his use to get out and about when he was able to do so. A more accessible home was necessary. The new home had to accommodate not only Mr. Allum's family but also provide additional living quarters for a live in nurse as he requires round the clock care. The home identified by agents retained by Gildeas required significant modifications, including ceiling tracking systems to facilitate his movement around the house.
Throughout this process, Gildeas secured interim payments to ensure that Mr. Allum and his family did not suffer financially. This was particularly crucial given his inability to work and the increased costs of hospital visits and care. Admiral, the insurer of the third party, was proactive in agreeing to payments that allowed for the acquisition and adaptation of a new house, along with a specially adapted van. This ensured that Mr. Allum's transition to his new life was as smooth as possible.
Comprehensive Medical Assessments
To accurately assess Mr. Allum's losses, multiple medical reports were obtained. These detailed the extent of his physical and neurological injuries, the type of accommodation and equipment needed, and the associated costs. The assessment of nursing care required to support Mr. Allum indicated an annual cost of £350,000, quantification of this allowed Gildeas to ensure he and is family would not be financially impacted by the accident.
Financial and Emotional Compensation
While no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss of independence Mr. Allum has experienced, the £5.9 million settlement provides significant financial security. It ensures his extensive care needs are met and that he can live as comfortably as possible given his circumstances. The settlement also includes provisions for an adapted vehicle, further enhancing his mobility and quality of life.
Stephen Hay, Director
Paul is a highly intelligent and motivated person. I was struck by how big an impact this would have on him but that he would take a pragmatic approach to things. My meetings and discussions with Paul allowed be to identify the issues he would face and what had to be addressed to meet those needs at that point and into the future.
Paul was so involved in his case he even took it upon himself to suggest improvements that could be made to the manufacturers of kit that was being supplied!
When it came to explaining why we were seeking certain amounts of money and the basis for the figures he understood what we were saying. The injuries have changed Paul’s ability to do things physically but his mental abilities are still as sharp as ever. I hope the settlement that was negotiated here will allow him and his family to move forward without having to worry about Paul’s quality of life nor the quality of his care.
In our client’s words
“Stephen assisted at all stages in my recovery, at first assisting my family whilst I was in a coma and getting things set up, then helping arrange for property experts to find a suitable home. Things have not been easy, learning to cope with complete paralysis from the chest down, and the loss of usefulness of my right arm; but at all stages Gildeas and Stephen were available for advice and support. Now I am looking forward to getting home with my family."
Conclusion
Thanks to Gildeas and the medical experts instructed, Mr. Allum can face his new reality with dignity and hope. As he continues his recovery, Mr. Allum can take comfort in knowing that his financial and practical needs are being met, allowing him to focus on rebuilding his life and finding new ways to enjoy his retirement years.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles. If you require assistance, reach out to our expert team on 0141 331 6070.
Children and contributory negligence
Introduction
Although liability in children’s road traffic accident claims is often easy to establish, the issue of contributory negligence can still arise.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence means that any damages awarded to the claimant are reduced by an amount the court considers "just and equitable," reflecting the pursuer’s share of the responsibility for the damage (s1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945). The defender must prove that contributory negligence applies. Decisions are based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Running into the Road
The law typically applies an objective standard of care, but age is a notable exception. Children are not expected to exercise the same level of care as adults, and their age is considered when assessing contributory negligence.
Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5
In this case, a 13-year-old girl was struck by a car after emerging from behind her school bus and running into the road. The driver, traveling at about 50mph in poor light, did not slow down despite the presence of the school bus. Initially, the girl was found 90% liable for the accident due to her recklessness. On appeal, her contributory negligence was reduced to 70%, considering her age and the difficulty of assessing the car's speed in poor light. The Supreme Court further reduced it to 50%, acknowledging the complexities of crossing a major road at dusk for a child.
Child Seats
Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 mandates that drivers ensure children under 14 are properly restrained. Specific regulations require children under 12 or below 1.35 meters in height to use appropriate child seats. If a child's injuries could have been avoided with proper seating, the driver may be deemed partially responsible. However, Scottish courts have yet to provide clear guidance on this issue, so we look to English cases for insight.
J v Wilkins [2000] EWCA Civ 3024
A mother placed her two-year-old child on her lap with an adult seatbelt, which contributed to the severity of the child's injuries in a collision. Despite the mother's limited understanding of the risk, the court applied a 25% reduction in contributory negligence based on expert evidence.
Hughes v Williams [2012] EWHC 1078 (QB)
In this case, a child was injured while seated on a booster cushion not meeting safety criteria. Experts testified that proper use of a five-point harness seat would have minimised the injuries. The court determined a 25% contributory negligence, as proper restraint would have largely avoided the injuries.
Conclusion
To conclude, contributory negligence is a common argument used by defenders and neither children nor their parents are immune to such arguments being successfully made.
While children are not judged by the same standards as adults, the standard of care expected will be measured by what can reasonably be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence, and experience. As such, their age will be a highly relevant factor when deciding whether contributory negligence should be applied and at what percentage.
On the other hand, no leniency can be expected when a parent fails to safeguard their child. While the Scottish courts are yet to set clear guidance on contributory negligence in such cases, some guidance can be obtained from England where contributory negligence has been applied at 25% in cases where a child is not seated in the appropriate child seat. However, the assessment of contributory negligence is nevertheless highly fact-sensitive with each case being considered on its own.
Written by Stella Kankaanpaa
Vulnerable Road Users and Liability
Written by Zoe Adamson
As part of the Bike Team, I handle personal injury claims for cyclists and motorcyclists, who are at greater risk on the road than drivers. The Highway Code emphasises their vulnerability, instructing other road users to exercise extra caution around them. However, case law indicates that cyclists and motorcyclists are not automatically favoured in accidents and must follow the same rules as everyone else.
The Highway Code
The Highway Code includes several rules to protect cyclists and motorcyclists:
Rule 160: Road users should be especially aware of cyclists and motorcyclists, as they might filter through traffic.
Rule 211: Cyclists and motorcyclists are often hard to see, especially when coming from behind, out of junctions, or filtering through traffic. Road users should look out for them, particularly when turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic.
Rule 212: Road users should give cyclists and motorcyclists plenty of space to pull out, turn right, or change direction.
Rule 213: Cyclists and motorcyclists might need to change direction suddenly to avoid road hazards like uneven surfaces, drain covers, or oily patches. Other road users should give them ample space.
These rules highlight the dangers cyclists and motorcyclists face and establish their right to filter through traffic. However, those who are filtering must also be aware of the risks involved and take care to avoid accidents.
Key Cases
Powell v Moody 1966
In this case, the motorcyclist (Plaintiff) was riding along a road with two lanes of stationary traffic. He tried to pass the traffic by riding on the right side (offside). A car driver (Defendant) was trying to turn right out of a side road and collided with the motorcyclist. The driver had been allowed to turn by another driver who left a gap in the traffic.
The court decided that both the motorcyclist and the car driver were at fault for not paying enough attention. However, the motorcyclist was found to be more at fault because riding on the right side of stationary traffic is especially dangerous. Additionally, the court felt the speed of the manoeuvre was too high. The responsibility for the accident was divided: 80% to the motorcyclist and 20% to the car driver. This decision was upheld on appeal.
Jason Moffat v Zenith Insurance Plc 2018
In this case, the cyclist (Pursuer) was riding at the speed limit of 30 mph on a street in Edinburgh. He tried to pass a car (Defender) on the left side (nearside). The car driver had signalled and checked mirrors before turning left, but still collided with the cyclist. The cyclist claimed he did not see the signal.
The court decided that the car driver had done everything reasonably expected to ensure safety, such as signalling and checking mirrors. The cyclist was found entirely at fault for the accident. The ruling emphasised that there should not be a general assumption that cyclists are always favoured in traffic accidents with cars. This decision might be different now due to updates in traffic rules after the case.
Conclusion
The Highway Code is designed to protect all road users, especially the most vulnerable like cyclists and motorcyclists. It permits filtering and instructs other road users to be cautious around cyclists and motorcyclists. However, the vulnerability of these road users does not mean they are less responsible for accidents. They are expected to follow the same rules as other road users. When handling bike cases, we cannot assume that the other party is always at fault simply because cyclists and motorcyclists are more exposed. Each case must be evaluated based on its specific circumstances to determine liability fairly.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [June 2024]. If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
Understanding Whiplash: Pursuing compensation for injury claims.
Written by Michaela Christie
Introduction – causes and symptoms
Whiplash refers to various neck and spinal injuries primarily caused by road traffic accidents but can also occur due to slipping, tripping, or any abrupt jolting of the neck or upper spine. The severity of whiplash ranges from mild stiffness and discomfort to severe symptoms like headaches, disrupted sleep, and even permanent disabilities. Recovery typically occurs within 2-8 weeks for minor cases but can take several months for more serious injuries. Compensation claims are higher for those with severe symptoms or emotional distress such as anxiety or depression, which may indicate chronic whiplash. Assessing damages for such cases can be contentious.
Presenting the evidence
As with any claim for personal injury, there is generally an expectation to provide sufficient evidence. For a person to be able to prove that they have suffered a whiplash injury, they will be required to attend a medical appointment whereby an independent medical expert will ascertain the symptoms which they have suffered due to the accident. Similarly, the affected party may also visit the hospital or their GP.
Obtaining the medical records of a pursuer may also serve as supportive of their case where an injury can be corroborated. However, whiplash injuries can often take a few hours or up to a few days to become noticeable, therefore clients do not always seek immediate treatment from a GP or hospital. As such, it is common for many people to have opted to treat themselves post-accident with over-the-counter pain relief to alleviate their discomfort. Nonetheless, adequate medical evidence is regarded as a necessity in verifying the severity of the injury sustained.
Securing whiplash compensation
Negotiating a settlement figure with a defender outside of court can become quite challenging. As such, certain key factors must be taken into consideration. In addition to injury, where a loss of earnings, car and repairs costs have been incurred, it is unreasonable to provide a statement of valuation of claim to a defender without prior thorough investigation. Similarly, once the appropriate level of initial evidence has been ingathered, only then can a solicitor or claims handler advise a client on the expected outcome of compensation which they can expect to receive for their injuries.
Given every claim is different, there is no one size fits all valuation available due simply to the nature of the injuries which the pursuer may have sustained. For example, a client might have suffered an exacerbation of a serious injury previously obtained in a past and unrelated accident. Accordingly, due to the present accident an underlying asymptomatic injury may have subsequently become symptomatic. This in turn, has then caused a negative consequential impact on the daily life of the pursuer. Circumstances such as these will often alter the value of a claim. Moreover, disclosing the appropriate requested evidence subsequently enables the defenders to put forward their offer to the pursuer with the intention of settling the matter efficiently.
Conclusion
In negotiating a settlement for whiplash compensation, several factors are crucial. The severity of the injury and its impact on the claimant's life are significant considerations. When a claim reaches court, the central question is whether, how would you have been but for the other person’s negligence. What would you not have had to pay for? If you have lost income what would you have been paid? Finally, how would you have been physically and mentally had the accident not happened? Successful settlements often occur when all necessary evidence is gathered and disclosed, prompting offers from the other party. Determining the compensation amount requires thorough examination of medical evidence.
https://gildeas.net/contact/
What is an occupiers’ liability claim?
Written by Ciara Roche
If you are injured in a public place which is owned or rented not by a public body, then you may be entitled to raise an action under the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960. This act sets out the circumstances in which a person who occupied an area of land can be held liable for the injury, property damage or death to a visitor of the land.
This type of claim can apply to a stretch of occupied land or other premises, including a fixed or moveable structure, which includes any vehicle, vessel or aircraft.
What duty of care is owed by the occupier?
It is useful to note the statutory provisions which underpin occupiers’ liability. The Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 section 1(1) explains that this act determines the care which a person who occupies or has control over land or premises is required to provide to any person entering the premises, in regards to any dangers on the premises or anything which is omitted to be done in respect of these dangers.
Section 2 of the act tells us that this care is required except where the occupier is entitled to, and does, extend, restrict, modify or exclude these obligations by agreement towards a person, where it ‘is reasonable to see that that person will not suffer injury or damage by reason of any such danger.’ In essence, the occupier owes a duty of care where it is reasonably foreseeable that harm would be caused to a visitor as a result of the occupier’s act or failure to act.
What do I need to prove in order to make a successful occupiers liability claim?
The essential factor that requires to be proved in order to make a successful occupiers liability claim is that the occupier was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of the danger on their premises and that they did not take the reasonable steps to prevent harm or injury. It is not enough for a pursuer to say that there was a danger on the premises and as result they suffered injury or damage.
There are also a number of other factors which will be relevant to a court in an occupiers’ liability case, these include:
- The nature of the danger;
- The extent of the injury or damage suffered by the pursuer;
- The probability of injury or harm;
- The age of the pursuer;
- Whether the pursuer was permitted on the premises.
As with any legal case, there are a number of defences which a defender may seek to make. The most notable are the defence of contributory negligence, meaning that the pursuer is partly at fault for their accident, and the defence of volenti non fit injuria, in other words the pursuer accepted the risk of injury. If a successful defence of contributory negligence is pled, then any damages awarded to the pursuer shall be reduced. If the defence of volenti non fit injuria is successfully pled, the occupiers’ liability claim as a whole may be unsuccessful.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including Occupiers' Liability claims. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [March 2024].If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
The Significance of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims
Written by Michaela Christie
Introduction
The success of a personal injury claim heavily relies on the quality and strength of the evidence presented. It is not merely about conveying a persuasive argument but ensuring it aligns with tangible proof, substantiating the claimant's position. This blog explores the critical role of evidence in personal injury claims and emphasises its impact on establishing liability, obtaining necessary proof, utilising expert opinions, incorporating witness testimonies, and addressing the consequences of weak evidence.
Establishing Liability
If the Pursuer has trouble proving that the Defender is responsible for their injuries it is vital to ensure that whilst seeking reparation, their solicitor exhausts every avenue available to them whilst ingathering the evidence. As such, this may include obtaining medical records, expert reports, witness statements, photographs, dashcam footage, police precognitions and/or police reports etc which are subsequently acknowledged as corroborative. Expert opinions can be deemed necessary to establish liability and in assessing the extent of a Pursuer’s injuries, some of which may include those provided by medical experts within a specified field and specialists in accident reconstruction etc. Liability is also established by proving that the harm suffered has been directly caused by the accident. This harm sustained may include but not limited to - physical injury, psychological injury, emotional distress and financial loss.
Obtaining the Evidence
Initial documentation of the accident scene is imperative, with clients encouraged to capture photographs and measurements. Law firms routinely request medical records to verify post-accident GP or hospital visits, providing essential proof of the severity of injuries. This also aids in uncovering any pre-existing conditions undisclosed by the claimant, ensuring transparency in the claims process.
Expert Evidence
Referring to the case of Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, the importance of expert evidence is underscored. Independent medical experts play a crucial role in assessing injuries and their impact, even in cases of seemingly minor incidents. Adhering to the Scottish Pre-Action Protocol timelines ensures a smooth progression of personal injury claims, especially in significant accidents involving insurance companies.
The Role of Witnesses
Credible witnesses significantly contribute to building a robust case. Collecting contact details promptly and securing supportive statements from witnesses is vital. The urgency in gathering witness evidence stems from the natural deterioration of recollections over time. The Anderson v Jas B Fraser & Co Ltd 1992 S.L.T 1129 case highlights the competence of witness statements obtained during precognition in supporting a claim.
Disadvantages of Weak Evidence
Claims supported by indisputable evidence are more likely to secure successful outcomes. Conversely, weak or insufficient evidence may lead to contention, resulting in reduced settlement offers or unsuccessful claims. The clear establishment of the link between the accident and injury is crucial to avoid complications and additional costs associated with updated reports.
Conclusion
Compelling evidence is essential when establishing liability. This provides justification as to who was at fault for an accident and forms the basis of any victorious personal injury case.
Concrete evidence enables Defenders and/or the courts to measure the severity and impact of the harm sustained by the Pursuer. Furthermore, the strength of the evidence can positively influence negotiations and encourage the other side to settle the claim for a much greater monetary value.