Assembly workers in some employments may be exposed to very high repetitions of movements daily. The condition may have different names; Synovitis, Bursitis, Tenosynovitis, Tendinitis, Peritendinitis, Epicondylitis or even Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
It is generally agreed that skin disease is the commonest occupationally-caused disease.
For the Plaintiff, “fighting” did not require him to give evidence; the case was run purely on legal arguments. Although the judgement of the three-judge Court of Appeal was unanimous in his favour, the legal arguments were sufficiently cogent to defeat him in first instance (and to have attracted the Defendants’ lawyers to the course of action they took, in the first instance).
An employer owes duties to employees under Common Law and statute. The common law duties have been developed by the courts as they decide cases on accidents at work.
Litigation lawyers fight. If a lawyer is not generally fighting, he/she is not in litigation. Sometimes the lawyer is fighting for a plaintiff and sometimes the lawyer is fighting for the defendant.
“Most of the suggestions put in cross-examination to the plaintiff as to what he should have done were farfetched and wholly unreal as I have already indicated.”
It is a source of additional worry (above the prospect of unemployment) to employees who have been injured at work, to find that their employer is insolvent.
The Plaintiffs wished to take their honeymoon in Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt. Having booked, they were alarmed to receive reports that their hotel was being overbooked. They checked with Panorama and were reassured that was not the case. On arrival in Egypt they found it was the case and they were declined accommodation in the hotel contracted for.
If you are injured at work, it is extremely likely that your employer is responsible for the accident. It is one of the duties of your employer that he/she provide you with a safe place of work.
The Hospital argued that the pleadings in the action alleged a defect with, or in, a forceps used in the Hospital. It argued that a claim that a forceps was defective was not a medical negligence claim (“…the correctness or otherwise of the surgical procedure being carried out”), but was a defective product claim.