the Plaintiff suffered severe personal injury and suffered loss damage and expense.
Owners of property are generally aware of the need to take out insurance policies against loss or damage to the property. It is foolish to think, for instance, that if something falls from the sky onto a building, a viable claim in negligence will subsist against some person to pay for the damage caused to the building. Furthermore, as a practical matter, it is foolish to think that even if such a claim were to validly subsist, that that would be easily converted into the full recovery of that compensation.
There are many important issues which are never discussed on doorsteps with political candidates at election time, but ought to be.
The law on occupiers’ liability applies when the injury is caused by a defect or some condition of the premises. If the injury occurs without involving the premises, occupiers’ liability does not arise.
Medical negligence litigation is unlike litigation generally. The cases throw up arguments about causation the like of which do not appear elsewhere.
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).