Enquire Today

Month: March 2025

Finegan v. McDonald [2025] and Conflicting Expert Evidence in Personal Injury Claims in NI

Posted on by Maria Adams

The recent case of David Finegan v. Margaret McDonald [2025] NIKB 14 highlights a key challenge in personal injury claims: the difficulty of navigating conflicting expert evidence, especially when it concerns multiple heads of claim, such as psychological injuries (including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD) and financial loss. The outcome of this case offers valuable insights for personal injury solicitors, insurers, and Plaintiffs, underscoring the critical role expert evidence plays in determining the outcome of such claims. This decision, handed down by Colton J, highlights the importance of assessing not only the credibility of the Plaintiff’s evidence but also the weight given to differing expert opinions on complex psychiatric and financial issues.

A significant aspect of the defence, was that the account of the Plaintiff and his injuries lacked credibility. This primarily centred around the plaintiff’s claim for psychiatric injury and loss of earnings. As such, the case sheds light on the challenges faced by the courts when evaluating psychiatric conditions, which are often subjective and difficult to prove—such as PTSD—as well as assessing financial losses, particularly where claims are speculative or based on uncertain business projections. The court’s reasoning, the weight placed on competing expert reports, and the final decision on damages provide valuable guidance for how such cases may be approached in the future.

 

The Accident: An Overview of the Incident

 

On 27 January 2019, David Finegan was involved in a road traffic accident at the junction of Millennium Way and Union Street in Lurgan. As he drove through a traffic light-controlled junction, his car was struck by a vehicle driven by Margaret McDonald. The collision was severe, and Finegan was left trapped inside his vehicle, fearing for his life. While he sustained physical injuries, it was the psychological trauma following the incident and the ensuing loss of earnings that became the primary focus of the case, resulting in a complex legal battle.

The plaintiff’s claim therefore consisted of three key elements:

  1. General damages for physical injuries,
  2. General damages for psychiatric injury and,
  3. Special damages for loss of earnings/opportunity.

 

First things First: Soft Tissue Injuries

 

Finegan sustained soft tissue injuries to his right wrist, knee, and lower right leg, which were initially treated by his GP.  The physical aspect of the case was overshadowed by the psychological claims that emerged later. The court awarded £7,500 for the physical injuries, but the focus shifted to the psychiatric injury Finegan claimed was caused by the accident.

 

Expert Evidence: The Crux of the Dispute

 

The case largely hinged on conflicting expert opinions regarding Finegan’s psychiatric condition and financial loss. Expert evidence often plays a pivotal role in personal injury cases involving psychological harm and financial claims, and the differing opinions from the two psychiatrists and the opposing financial experts presented significant challenges for the court.

There was a fundamental disagreement between the consultant psychiatrists retained by the parties: Dr Mangan, representing the plaintiff, and Dr Chada, representing the defendant. Both experts are well-known to insurance and personal injury solicitors in Northern Ireland. The court received several detailed reports from each psychiatrist, and the initial hearing had to be adjourned to allow further reports to be prepared. The court heard from both psychiatrists on two separate occasions.

 

Dr. Mangan’s Reports: Support for PTSD Diagnosis

 

Dr. Mangan’s reports concluded that Finegan suffered from PTSD, triggered both by the accident and his previous traumatic experiences during military service. Dr. Mangan’s assessment was based on multiple consultations with Finegan and a thorough examination of his medical history, which included exposure to trauma during his military career.

 

Key Findings in Dr. Mangan’s Reports:

 

  • Previous Trauma: Dr. Mangan identified Finegan’s military experiences as significant contributors to his vulnerability to PTSD.
  • Symptomatology: Dr. Mangan reported that Finegan exhibited classic PTSD symptoms, such as flashbacks, hypervigilance, and avoidance behaviours, which worsened after the accident.
  • Diagnosis: Dr. Mangan’s diagnosis linked the road traffic accident as a critical factor in reactivating Finegan’s latent PTSD symptoms.

 

Dr. Chada’s Reports: Alternative Diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder

 

In contrast, Dr. Chada provided a conflicting diagnosis. She acknowledged that Finegan had experienced psychological distress following the accident, but argued that his symptoms were more in line with an adjustment disorder than PTSD. Dr. Chada attributed Finegan’s psychological struggles primarily to the financial pressures he faced, which were exacerbated by the ongoing litigation.

 

Key Findings in Dr. Chada’s Reports:

 

  • Absence of PTSD Symptoms: Dr. Chada contended that Finegan did not exhibit the hallmark PTSD symptoms, such as re-experiencing traumatic events or hypervigilance.
  • Adjustment Disorder: She suggested that Finegan’s difficulties were more indicative of an adjustment disorder, influenced largely by his financial situation and stress related to the accident, rather than a deeply rooted psychiatric condition like PTSD.

The Court’s Handling of Conflicting Psychiatric Expert Evidence

 

The conflicting expert reports posed a challenge for the trial judge, who needed to determine which diagnosis was most likely to explain Finegan’s psychological state. Furthermore, the court had to weigh conflicting evidence, inconsistencies, and whether any inconsistency represented a ‘material inconsistency.’

 

Psychiatric Injury: Weighing the Expert Evidence in Personal Injury Claims

 

  1. Preference for Dr. Mangan’s Diagnosis: Judge Colton ultimately favoured Dr. Mangan’s opinion over Dr. Chada’s, citing the thoroughness of his assessments and the consistency of his diagnosis with other medical records. Dr. Mangan had assessed Finegan on five separate occasions, and his findings were supported by other healthcare professionals involved in Finegan’s treatment.
  2. Timeliness and Consistency: The court noted that Finegan had sought medical help within six months of the accident, which was consistent with the onset of PTSD. This was an important factor in confirming the link between the accident and Finegan’s psychological condition.
  3. Dr. Chada’s Focus: The judge noted that Dr. Chada focused excessively on inconsistencies and exaggerations in Finegan’s symptoms. While the court acknowledged that Finegan had exaggerated his symptoms in his PIP application for financial gain, it felt that Dr. Chada placed too much emphasis on the financial pressures Finegan was experiencing, which seemed to overshadow the evidence of a deeper psychological injury. While the court accepted that financial stress contributed to Finegan’s condition, it was not considered the primary cause of his PTSD.

 

Awards for Psychiatric Damage in Northern Ireland

 

Insurance and Personal Injury practitioners will appreciate that there exist Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Claims in Northern Ireland.  In cases involving psychiatric damage, the severity of the injury typically dictates the level of compensation. Key factors include the impact of the injury on daily life, work, relationships, treatment progress, and prognosis. The compensation ranges for psychiatric damage are as follows:

 

  • Severe Psychiatric Damage:
    • Significant problems across various factors with a poor prognosis.
    • Compensation: £100,000 – £250,000.
  • Moderately Severe Psychiatric Damage:
    • Significant issues but with a more optimistic prognosis than severe damage.
    • Compensation: £60,000 – £150,000.
  • Moderate Psychiatric Damage:
    • Issues present, but marked improvement by trial with a good prognosis.
    • Compensation: £15,000 – £60,000.
  • Minor Psychiatric Damage (including adjustment disorders):
    • Compensation for personal injury claims based on the length of disability and impact on daily activities or sleep:
      • Full recovery within 12 months: Up to £10,000.
      • Full recovery within 12-24 months: Up to £20,000.
      • Minor effects: Up to £20,000.

 

Appropriate Diagnosis and Assessment of General Damages for Personal Injury Claims involving Psychiatric Injury

 

The judge emphasised that, while the diagnosis is important, the more significant factor in assessing damages in personal injury  claims is the impact the condition has had on the plaintiff’s daily functioning and lifestyle. Finegan’s ability to work had been notably affected, though he sought medical help, which was beneficial. While he remained vulnerable to future setbacks, the judge believed that resolving the case should lead to improvement. The psychiatric damage suffered by Finegan was considered moderately severe, regardless of whether it was diagnosed as PTSD or general psychiatric injury. As a result, the judge awarded £65,000 in damages for Finegan’s psychiatric injury.

 

Financial Loss and Loss of Earnings in Personal Injury Claims: Conflicting Evidence

 

The dispute over Finegan’s financial loss was equally contentious, with experts divided on the extent of his lost earnings and the future potential of his consultancy business.

  1. Claim for Financial Loss and Loss of Opportunity: Finegan claimed that the accident had prevented him from progressing his consultancy business, David Finegan Consulting Limited, which had been focused on advising businesses tendering for high-value public and private sector contracts. He was also developing a subscription-based online business model for training and consultancy services. However, after the accident, these plans stalled, and Finegan argued that the crash severely affected his ability to develop the business and maintain his income. At the time of the accident, he had already made progress on developing this business model and sought compensation for the loss of this opportunity, supported by expert testimony from Mr David Vincent, who estimated a potential loss of income between £544,171 and £824,728 based on the likelihood of success in the digital business.
  2. Loss of Earnings: The plaintiff’s evidence showed that, prior to the accident, his income had already begun to decline due to personal circumstances, particularly his role in caring for his seriously ill brother. His consultancy earnings had dropped from £70,000-£79,000 per year between 2015 and 2017 to £52,000 in 2018. Finegan argued that, had the accident not occurred, his earnings would have remained at or near the 2017 level.

 

Conflicting Financial Expert Opinions

 

The plaintiff’s expert, ASM Accountants, calculated a total loss of earnings from 2019 to retirement (age 68) at £210,396, including both past and future losses, as well as therapy costs. However, the defendant’s expert, Harbinson Mulholland, disputed this claim, proposing a more modest loss range based on a 12-24 month period, suggesting a maximum loss of £102,305.

 

Key Disputes in Financial Evidence:

 

  • Speculative Business Loss: The defence argued that the plaintiff’s claims about the online subscription business were speculative. They pointed out that the failure rate for new businesses, particularly digital start-ups, was high, and the predicted future income was unrealistic. The court was not persuaded by the expert testimony forecasting substantial future income from the business model, leading to a dismissal of the business loss claim.
  • Declining Income Prior to the Accident: The defence also highlighted Finegan’s pre-accident decline in earnings, which weakened his argument that his business would have performed better had the accident not occurred. Finegan’s own history of decreasing earnings, largely due to his caregiving responsibilities for his brother, was a crucial factor in undermining his claim.
  • Psychiatric Condition’s Impact on Earnings: While the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was acknowledged, the defence questioned the extent to which it had affected his ability to work. Cross-examination of the plaintiff’s medical experts raised doubts about the degree of incapacity caused by the accident. Ultimately, the court accepted that Finegan’s condition had impacted his work but found that the loss of earnings was not as significant as the plaintiff had claimed.

 

The Court’s Decision on Financial Loss

 

The court, while recognising that Finegan had suffered from psychiatric issues and had difficulty resuming work, ultimately awarded a more conservative amount for loss of earnings. The court was not persuaded by the claim for loss of opportunity, finding the business projections speculative. In what was evidently a robust and effective cross-examination by David Ringland KC, the plaintiff’s expert accepted the high failure rate of new digital businesses and the lack of clear evidence about funding or any concrete steps toward launching the service.

Based on the actual income presented and factoring in the prior decline in earnings, the court determined the potential future earnings to be in the range of £20,000 to £25,000, awarding £67,500 for loss of earnings over a period of three years and two months (from January 2019 to April 2022).

 

Conclusion: The Role of Conflicting Expert Evidence in Personal Injury Claims

 

The Finegan v. McDonald case demonstrates how conflicting expert evidence can shape the outcome of personal injury claims, particularly in cases involving psychological harm and financial loss. The court had to carefully navigate the competing expert opinions, giving weight to the more credible and consistent reports. In the end, while the court acknowledged the impact of both the psychological injury and the plaintiff’s financial struggles, it awarded more conservative amounts for each, reflecting the realistic potential for income and the nuanced nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

 

MOT Test Exemptions and Credit Hire Claims in Northern Ireland: An Update

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Understanding MOT Test Delays, Exemptions, and Their Impact on Credit Hire Claims in Northern Ireland

MOT test delays in Northern Ireland have presented significant challenges for motorists, particularly when it comes to credit hire claims. Factors such as issues with vehicle lifts, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased demand for MOT tests have meant that many drivers need alternative solutions for vehicle use, which has contributed to a rise in credit hire cases. To address these challenges, Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs) have been introduced, offering temporary relief for eligible drivers.

What Are Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs)?

BBC News on 7th March 2024 confirmed that MOT test exemptions have been extended to manage waiting times.

Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs) allow certain motorists to legally drive their vehicles while awaiting an MOT test, as long as the vehicles are roadworthy, taxed, and insured. The extension of TECs in Northern Ireland is designed to help reduce the backlog of MOT tests and alleviate delays caused by the growing demand for vehicle inspections.

Around 107,000 private cars in Northern Ireland, usually five and seven years old, may be eligible for TECs under the latest extension. This initiative has already proven effective, reducing MOT waiting times from over 100 days in May 2024 to approximately 30 days by February 2025. The extension will last for another year, and the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) will automatically process TECs for eligible vehicles.

Main Causes of MOT Delays in Northern Ireland

Several factors have contributed to extended MOT delays in Northern Ireland:

  • Vehicle Lift Issues: In late 2019, cracks were discovered in 48 out of 55 vehicle lifts at MOT centres, severely limiting testing capacity.
  • COVID-19 Pandemic: The suspension of testing on multiple occasions during the pandemic further worsened the backlog.
  • Increased Demand: More vehicles are on the road, and customers are holding onto their older cars longer, which has led to higher demand for MOT tests.

 

How the DVA in Northern Ireland is Responding to MOT Delays

To address the MOT delays, the DVA has taken several steps, including:

  • Recruitment of Additional Examiners: More staff have been hired to increase the number of available tests.
  • Extended Testing Hours: MOT appointments are now available on Sundays and public holidays to help reduce the backlog.
  • Temporary Exemption Certificates: TECs allow some drivers to remain on the road legally while waiting for their MOT.
  • Target to Reduce Waiting Times: The DVA aims to reduce the average MOT waiting time for private cars to six weeks or less by 31 March 2025.

Credit Hire and MOT Issues in Northern Ireland

The link between MOT issues and credit hire claims has become a significant concern to Credit Hire Practitioners in Northern Ireland. Our recent article on the case of Majid Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP Zoo [2024] EWCA Civ 1479 highlighted a crucial judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal that has wide implications for claims involving credit hire costs, particularly when the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident.

The Majid Ali Case and Its Impact on Credit Hire Claims

In the Majid Ali case, the Court of Appeal examined the balance between compensating an individual deprived of the use of their vehicle and preserving the integrity of the law concerning illegal acts, such as driving a vehicle without a valid MOT. The Court concluded that barring the claimant from recovering credit hire costs due to the absence of an MOT would be disproportionate.

The Court compared the penalty for not having an MOT — a £1,000 fine — with the claimant’s credit hire claim of over £21,000. The Court raised “immediate and troubling questions of proportionality” about refusing the claim solely on the grounds of an expired MOT certificate.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that minor traffic offences, such as failing to have a valid MOT, would not automatically prevent recovery of credit hire charges. The Court also suggested that damages could be reduced in such cases, but more serious offences (such as driving without insurance, which carry heavier criminal penalties) are likely to result in the claim failing.

How MOT Delays Affect Credit Hire Claims in Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, MOT or a lack thereof in a Plaintiff’s damaged vehicle can call into question the entitlement of a credit hire vehicle.  An individual provided with a fully MOT’d vehicle on a credit hire basis, when their own vehicle has no valid MOT has arguably, been provided a better vehicle than their own and the principle of betterment occurs.  These arguments have become increasingly common as more drivers struggle with long wait times for MOT tests. Insurers often attempt to use the ex turpi causa defence, arguing that a motorist who drives without a valid MOT should not be entitled to recover damages in the event of a road traffic accident (RTA). However, the Majid Ali case shows that courts are more likely to consider the proportionality of denying credit hire claims for minor infringements like an expired MOT certificate.

What Does the Future Hold for MOT Testing and Credit Hire in Northern Ireland?

Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins stressed that the TEC extension will allow the DVA to manage the high demand for MOT tests until new testing facilities at Hydebank and Mallusk are up and running. The DVA has also been working to increase testing capacity at its 15 test centres by recruiting additional examiners and offering overtime.

MOT Reform and Credit Hire Claims: What’s Next?

The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) has launched a consultation to consider changes to MOT testing frequency. The consultation, which runs until 16 April 2025, is exploring whether MOT tests for some private cars, motorcycles, and light goods vehicles could be extended to every two years instead of annually. Such changes could have further implications for credit hire claims, particularly if the frequency of MOT tests is adjusted.

Conclusion: MOT Delays, TECs, and Credit Hire in Northern Ireland

The extension of Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs) and the DVA’s ongoing efforts to improve testing capacity will help reduce MOT waiting times and ensure that Northern Ireland’s road safety standards are maintained. For credit hire claims, the Majid Ali case provides important legal clarification, reinforcing that minor traffic offences such as a lapsed MOT will not automatically prevent recovery of credit hire costs. However, more serious offences, like driving without insurance, are likely to result in a claim being denied due to the more severe criminal consequences.

For more information on MOT test exemptions and credit hire claims in Northern Ireland, visit the original article on BBC News.

How Social Media Evidence Impacts Personal Injury Cases in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

 

Social media has become an integral part of modern life, with platforms such as Facebook and Instagram now used by around 70% of the population. This widespread usage carries significant implications for personal injury cases in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where social media evidence is increasingly utilised in legal proceedings.

 

The Growing Importance of Social Media Evidence

 

Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Strava, and TikTok offer a wealth of information that can play a crucial role in personal injury cases. Posts, photos, videos, and comments are often examined to assess the credibility of a claimant’s allegations regarding their injuries and the impact on their lifestyle. Companies such as Netwatch are commonly engaged to scrutinise a claimant’s social media presence for evidence that might suggest their injuries have been exaggerated or fabricated. For instance, a claimant who asserts they have severe physical limitations might undermine their case by posting images or videos of themselves participating in activities that contradict their claims.

 

Admissibility of Social Media Evidence in Northern Ireland

 

In Northern Ireland, any party involved in an action must disclose to the other party any documents “which are or have been in their possession, custody, or power relating to matters in question in the case or matter.”

The test for discovery is set out in the Supreme Court Practice (1999 Volume 1 at 24/2/11), which is as follows:

“Not limited to documents which should be admissible in evidence nor to those which would prove or disprove any matter in question: any documents which, it is reasonable to suppose, contain information that may enable the party (applying for discovery) either to advance their own case or to damage that of their adversary, if it is a document that may reasonably lead to an inquiry which may have either of those two consequences, must be disclosed.”

A claim that documents are confidential does not, in itself, exclude them from the obligation of disclosure. The fact that material available on a publicly-accessible part of a social media account can be used as evidence seems uncontroversial.

As Lord Goff noted in Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] AC 109 at 282:

“Once (information) has entered what is called the public domain, then as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it.”

Order 24, Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (NI) 1980, which concerns an application for discovery of documents, states:

“On the hearing of an application for an order under rule 3, 7 and 8, the court, if satisfied that discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the case or matter, may dismiss or, as the case may be, adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make an order if it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.”

There is no doubt that documents, if relevant—such as social media posts—are discoverable. Prima facie, they constitute information that is entitled to be used.

This was evidenced in the Northern Irish case of Martin and ors Gabriele v Giambrone P/A Giambrone & Law [2013] NIQB 48, where it was held that privacy settings on a Facebook post did not affect the admissibility of evidence and the evidence was admitted.

 

Challenges with Privacy Settings

 

The issue of privacy settings on social media accounts has not been extensively addressed by Irish courts. However, in Martin v Giambrone, it was noted that users share information on platforms like Facebook at their own risk, as there is no guarantee that posts intended for friends will remain private. Hordner J, in his judgment, stated:

“Anyone who uses Facebook does so at their peril. There is no guarantee that any comments posted to be viewed by friends will only be seen by those friends. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how information can remain confidential if a Facebook user shares it with all their friends and yet no control is placed on the further dissemination of that information by those friends. No evidence was provided as to how many friends the defendant had and what their relationship was with each of them. It was certainly not suggested that those friends were restricted in any way as to how they used any information given to them by the defendant. To avoid any confusion, I do not consider that any of the friends viewing that information would necessarily have concluded that the information was confidential and could not be disclosed. I have received no evidence as to why those friends were restricted in how they can use information received from the defendant and why they would have known this information was confidential or private.”

In the United States, courts have deliberated the balance between the probative value of social media evidence and privacy rights. For example, in Spoljaric v Savarese (2020), the court allowed the discovery of social media material related to physical activities but rejected requests for Fitbit and dating website data due to privacy concerns.

 

Case Dismissals Due to Social Media Evidence

 

Social media evidence has led to the dismissal of claims in some cases. We wrote previously about Fraud in Personal Injury cases in Ireland citing the case of Danagher v Glantine Inns [2010] IEHC 214, the plaintiff’s claim of severe injuries was undermined by their Facebook activity, which included playing sports and participating in a parachute event. Similarly, in Gervin v MIB [2017] IEHC 286, the plaintiff’s claim of being unable to attend the gym was contradicted by her Facebook posts.

“Her Facebook page was put to her in cross-examination, and I am satisfied from the entries, which she admitted had been posted by her, that she had returned to the gym by 2013 at least. Her suggestion that the evidence had been obtained in breach of her privacy settings is not credible, as at the relevant time, she did not have a privacy restriction on her Facebook account.”

Conclusion

 

Social media evidence plays a pivotal role in personal injury cases, offering insights into a claimant’s lifestyle and the veracity of their claims. Both claimants and insurers must navigate this digital landscape with caution, keeping in mind the potential legal consequences. As technology continues to evolve, the role of social media in legal proceedings is expected to grow, making it a crucial factor in personal injury litigation, along with the inevitable issues concerning admissibility, privacy, and authenticity.

How to Claim Compensation After an Accident on Public Transport in County Antrim

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

 

Whilst Public transport has an essential role in the economy and community of Northern Ireland, accidents can happen and when they do, they can leave an individual suffering both physically and financially.  If you were injured after an accident on public transport in Northern Ireland, then this quick guide could help.

 

Public Transport in Northern Ireland

 

Roads will remain the predominant feature of the transportation infrastructure in Northern Ireland but there will always be a need for a modern and innovative public transport system that provides an alternative to the car, which is integrated, efficient and affordable and provides access to services and facilities for those with disabilities and those in rural areas.

The public transport system in Belfast and County Antrim includes buses, trains, some taxis, the Metro and the Translink buses, such as the Ulsterbus and Goldline and Glider buses.

 

What are Common Accidents on Public Transport?

 

According to the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland there were 68 deaths in road traffic accidents in 2024.

Unfortunately accidents on public transport are not limited to road traffic collisions.

The types of accidents you might encounter on public transport include:

  •       A bus driver braking abruptly could send you tripping or falling down the aisle.
  •       You might stumble when stepping onto or off the bus or train.
  •       You could fall into the gap between the train and the station.
  •       You could be the victim of road rage while travelling on public transport.
  •       Wet flooring in bad weather can make surfaces easier to slip on.
  •       You might suffer psychological trauma as a result of an accident.

 

How Much Compensation do you get for a Bus Accident?

 

It is impossible to say how much compensation you may be awarded after a successful claim for compensation. Each accident differs and individual injuries will contribute towards your award. Read our guide and speak to an experienced personal injury solicitor after an accident on public transport to gauge what your claim may be worth.

 

What Happens if you are in an Accident in a Taxi or Uber?

 

Uber is not considered public transport. However, Uber has incorporated a Transit Ride option in its app to encourage people to use public transportation instead of personal vehicles

If you are in an accident in an Uber or Taxi, you are not likely to be at fault for the accident. You were not driving and do not have any input into the outcome of a collision; therefore in all likelihood you are not to blame.

Public liability is less simple when no collision is involved. This is because the injuries are not caused by a traffic accident but rather by circumstances onboard the vehicle. For example, you might suffer a bad fall on your way to your seat. Read our case study about Steph’s public transport accident case.

 

What to do to Bring a Claim for Compensation After an Accident on Belfast Public Transport

 

If you have become injured in a road traffic accident on public transport in County Antrim, then you may be eligible to bring a claim for compensation to the relevant third party insurers. Speak to the team of expert lawyers specialising in public transport accidents to devise a strategy which best represents you.

 

Related Reading:

 

 

 

 

Defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria in Insurance Law: Applications in Workplace, Motor and Public Liability Claims.

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

When it comes to insurance claims, particularly in personal injury cases, the defence of volenti non fit injuria plays a significant role. Derived from Latin, the term translates to “to a willing person, injury is not done.” This legal principle is often invoked by defendants in a variety of cases, including Employers Liability, Public Liability and Motor Liability claims.  But how does this defence work in practice? In this article, we will explore the concept of volenti non fit injuria and how it might be applied in different accident scenarios, using real cases from our office.

What is Volenti Non Fit Injuria?

 

Volenti non fit injuria is a defence used in personal injury cases to argue that the Plaintiff willingly accepted the risk of injury, thus negating any liability for the defendant. This defence essentially asserts that the person who suffers harm or injury did so voluntarily and with full knowledge of the risks involved.

In order for this defence to succeed, the defendant must prove that:

  1. The plaintiff had knowledge of the risk involved in the activity or situation.
  2. The plaintiff voluntarily consented to take that risk and in doing so waives any right of action against the defendant in respect of any breach of duty of care or injury arising therefrom.

If the answer to each is in the affirmative then the wrongfulness of the Defendant’s conduct is excused and claimant is precluded from recovering damages

Employers Liability Claims

 

Workplace accidents are a common area where the defence of volenti non fit injuria (the voluntary assumption of risk) may be raised. Employers and insurance companies might invoke this defence when they believe an employee has voluntarily assumed a risk associated with their work. For example, if an employee willingly engages in a hazardous activity without proper safety equipment or training, an employer may argue that the employee accepted the risks involved.

However, it is challenging to successfully apply the defence of volenti non fit injuria in workplace accidents. Employees have a statutory right to work in a safe environment, and employers are legally required to take steps to ensure the safety of their workforce. If an accident occurs due to employer negligence—such as failing to provide adequate training or safety measures—the defence is unlikely to succeed. In such cases, the injured employee can pursue compensation for their injuries.

A recent case we handled involved a construction company working on a residential project in Belfast. At the time, the house had only been completed to the first floor level, and no scaffolding or barriers had been installed. The plaintiff, an employee, was aware that the scaffolding and barriers had not yet arrived but was eager to continue the work. Without the employer’s knowledge or permission, he began working, leading to a fall from a height of 15 feet and serious injury.

In our defence, we argued volenti non fit injuria on the grounds that the plaintiff knowingly began work without the authority to do so and voluntarily accepted the risks involved in working in unsafe conditions, without proper safety measures.

Public Liability Claims

 

Volenti non fit injuria can also play a role in public liability claims, such as slip-and-fall incidents. For example, if someone knowingly participates in an activity with inherent risks, such as attending a sports event or engaging in a dangerous recreational activity, this defence may be invoked in the event of an accident.

We represented a security management company hired to provide security services at a live music event. One of the attendees, the plaintiff, decided to crowd surf during the performance and sustained a serious head injury after colliding with a metal barrier at the front of the venue. In our defence, we argued that the plaintiff voluntarily exposed herself to the risk of injury by engaging in the inherently dangerous activity of crowd surfing.

Motor Liability Claims

 

While the defence of volenti non fit injuria is less commonly applied in motor accident claims, it can still be relevant. For example, if a driver willingly engages in dangerous behaviour, such as racing or driving under the influence of alcohol, the defendant may argue that the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. To succeed, the defendant would need to demonstrate that the claimant knowingly participated in the risky conduct.

In a recent case, we were instructed by an insurer to act on behalf of their policyholder, who chose to drive a motor vehicle intoxicated and caused a collision where the Plaintiff was a passenger in his vehicle.  Both parties were friends and had consumed alcohol, and despite being intoxicated, the defendant chose to drive all parties home. The plaintiff accepted a ride from the defendant, fully aware that the driver was under the influence. We raised volenti non fit injuria in our defence, arguing that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by accepting a lift from an intoxicated driver.

Key Considerations of Volenti Non Fit Injuria for Insurance Law Firms

 

For insurance law firms in Northern Ireland, understanding the nuances of volenti non fit injuria is essential when defending or advising clients in personal injury cases. Here are some key factors to consider:

  1. Risk Awareness and Consent: The claimant must have known and voluntarily accepted the risk involved. This is often difficult to prove, especially in cases where the individual was not fully aware of the potential danger or was under duress.

  2. Employer Duty of Care: In workplace accidents, the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment is paramount. Volenti non fit injuria is unlikely to succeed if the employer was negligent in fulfilling this duty.

  3. Public Liability Considerations: In public liability claims, defendants may attempt to invoke volenti if the claimant knowingly assumed the risk. However, if negligence is present—such as failure to provide adequate warnings or safety measures—the defence is less likely to succeed.

  4. Motor Liability  Defences: While volenti can be raised in motor accident claims, it is typically unsuccessful unless the claimant was engaging in reckless behaviour that directly contributed to the injuries.

 

Conclusion

 

The defence of volenti non fit injuria is an important legal concept in personal injury claims, and its application can vary depending on the circumstances surrounding an accident. Whether the case involves a workplace accident, a public liability claim, or a motor liability claim, understanding when and how this defence can be invoked is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants. Insurance law firms in Ireland must carefully assess the facts of each case and consider all elements of risk, consent, and negligence when determining the viability of this defence.

For insurance companies, working with experienced legal counsel can ensure that claims are appropriately defended, while claimants must be aware of their rights and the challenges of countering this defence. Legal professionals play a key role in navigating the complexities of volenti non fit injuria and ensuring fair outcomes for all parties involved.

Drop in Medical Negligence Claims Compensation Payments by Irish State Claims Agency (SCA)

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

A significant reduction in the overall sum paid out for medical negligence claims  in Ireland has led to a drop of nearly €90 million in compensation paid by the State Claims Agency (SCA) in 2024. New data reveals that damages payments related to clinical care cases fell by more than €65.4 million, dropping to €210.5 million in 2024.

 

State Hospitals, the NHS and the private healthcare sector are all filled with exceptionally talented, caring professionals who dedicate their lives to providing us with invaluable care during our most vulnerable moments. These healthcare workers are often under intense pressure, balancing high caseloads and dealing with complex medical situations. Their commitment to patient care is unparalleled, and in many cases, they deliver outstanding results.  However, despite their best efforts, medical negligence can still occur. Often, factors outside an individual healthcare worker’s control, such as staffing shortages, limited funding, or overwhelming patient demand, can contribute to situations where medical care falls below the expected standard. When these unfortunate incidents happen, patients deserve to know their rights and have access to justice.

The Irish Times reports a Drop in pay-outs for medical negligence claims but what does this mean?

Total Compensation Payments in 2024

 

The total damages paid across all categories amounted to €286.9 million in 2024, a decrease of €89.9 million from the €376.8 million paid out in 2023. These figures, provided to Social Democrats TD Aidan Farrelly, highlight the importance of scrutinising the state’s financial outgoings, particularly in the area of medical negligence and other claims.

Medical Negligence Claims: A Major Drop in Pay-outs

 

The reduction in compensation for medical negligence claims is the most significant change in the 2024 data. Clinical negligence covers a wide range of cases where patients suffer due to substandard care. This includes:

  • Surgical errors
  • Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis
  • Medication mistakes
  • Birth injuries

The decline in pay-outs for medical negligence claims could have serious implications for victims seeking fair compensation for the harm they have suffered. If you or a loved one have been affected by medical negligence, consulting an experienced medical negligence solicitor firm like Lacey Solicitors Belfast and Dublin is essential for securing the compensation you deserve.

Other Claims with Increased Compensation Payments in 2024

 

While medical negligence claims saw a drop, other categories of claims saw notable increases, including:

  1. Physical Hazards Exposure: Claims related to slips, trips, and falls rose by €4.6 million, totalling €21 million.
  2. Behavioural Hazards Exposure: Claims involving violence, harassment, or abuse increased by €3.9 million, reaching €15.2 million in 2024.
  3. Psychological Hazards Exposure: Cases involving wrongful death or psychological trauma rose by €3.6 million, totalling €28.3 million in pay-outs.
  4. Crash/Collision Claims: Payments for collision claims involving state vehicles, such as Garda or HSE cars, increased by more than €2.2 million, amounting to €5.5 million.

 

Factors Behind the Fluctuating Medical Negligence Payments

 

The State Claims Agency points out that the mode of settlement in clinical negligence claims can vary. In some cases, pay-outs are made as a lump sum, while in others, interim payments are made over several years. This variability means that the payments in any given year do not necessarily reflect the total cost of a claim.

Several factors influence the movement in compensation amounts, including settlements in mass actions and one-off significant payments. The SCA has stated that the figures provided may not always reflect the conclusion of the claims within the year the payments were made.

Rising Liabilities for Clinical Negligence and Other Claims

 

Despite the drop in pay-outs, the outstanding liabilities for claims remain substantial. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), the SCA paid a total of €574 million in settlements, awards, and expenses in 2023. By the end of 2023, the outstanding liability for claims was estimated at €5.185 billion, with the total amount expected to rise further. The full liability figures for 2024 will be published in the upcoming annual report.

What Does This Mean for Victims of Medical Negligence?

 

For those affected by clinical negligence, it is crucial to seek expert legal advice from a qualified medical negligence solicitor. At Lacey Solicitors, we specialise in handling medical negligence claims and can guide you through the process to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.

If you or a family member has been harmed due to medical errors, our team of experienced solicitors can help you take the necessary legal steps to seek justice and compensation. We offer free consultations, so you can get initial advice and don’t need to worry about the financial implications of pursuing your case.

Contact a Medical Negligence Solicitor at Lacey Solicitors Today

 

If you’ve been affected by medical negligence in Ireland, don’t delay in reaching out to a trusted medical negligence solicitor. At Lacey Solicitors, we are here to offer expert legal support and guide you through the process of claiming compensation for your injuries or suffering.  Read our Guide to Medical Negligence Claims in Northern Ireland and use our online form to contact us.

Learn More About Ruaidhri Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors

Ruaidhri Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors, is a highly regarded clinical negligence solicitor with a wealth of experience in handling complex claims. Ruaidhri has successfully represented numerous clients in high-profile medical malpractice cases.

To find out more about Ruaidhri’s expertise and the medical negligence cases he has worked on, visit his Partner Bio.

Understanding Limitation Periods for Personal Injury Claims in Ireland: Impact of Estoppel and Key Case Law

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Personal injury claims in Ireland are subject to strict limitation periods, governed by the Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 and the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. If you have suffered a personal injury due to someone else’s negligence, understanding these limitation periods is important. Failing to initiate a claim within the prescribed time can result in your case being dismissed. However, as illustrated in Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland [2022] IEHC 391, the application of the statute of limitations can be influenced by the conduct of the defendant, especially when the principle of estoppel is applied.

 

This article discusses the importance of limitation periods for personal injury claims in Ireland, the role of estoppel in preventing defendants from relying on the statute of limitations, and key case law such as Tsiu v. Aramark Ireland that have shaped this area of personal injury law.

 

What Are Limitation Periods for Personal Injury Claims in Ireland?

 

In Ireland, the limitation period for personal injury claims is governed by the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. Generally, you must file a personal injury claim within two years from the date of the accident or the date you become aware of the injury and the person responsible. This is known as the date of knowledge rule. If you fail to file a claim within this period, your claim may be dismissed, and you could lose the opportunity to claim compensation for your injuries.

The Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 also requires that a claimant notify the responsible party of their intention to pursue a claim within one month of the accident. If you do not meet this requirement, it could jeopardise your ability to recover legal costs or even prevent the case from proceeding.

 

Key Dates in the Personal Injury Claims Process

 

When calculating the limitation period, it’s important to understand the critical dates involved in the personal injury claims process:

  • Date of the Accident or Date of Knowledge: This is when the injury occurred or when the claimant became aware of the injury and the person responsible for it.
  • Expiration of the Limitation Period: The two-year period begins from the date of the accident or the date you became aware of the injury.
  • Form A Submission to PIAB: The date you submit your claim to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB).
  • Acknowledgment and Authorisation from PIAB: Once PIAB acknowledges your claim, it may issue authorisation to proceed to court if necessary.
  • Issuing Court Proceedings: You have six months from PIAB’s authorisation to issue court proceedings.
  • Balance of the Two-Year Period: The remaining time left in the two-year limitation period for filing court proceedings.

 

What Is Estoppel and How Does It Affect Limitation Periods?

 

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from going back on a representation or assumption that has misled another party into acting to their detriment. In personal injury claims, estoppel may prevent a defendant from relying on the statute of limitations defence if their conduct misled the claimant into believing the time limit would not be enforced.

The principle of estoppel was clearly illustrated in the case of Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland, where the defendant’s conduct—including admitting liability and engaging in settlement discussions—created a reasonable expectation in the plaintiff that the limitation period would not be raised. The defendant later attempted to use the statute of limitations as a defence despite having communicated in a way that misled the claimant.

 

Key Case Law: Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland

 

In Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland, the plaintiff was injured in a work-related accident on 4 December 2013. The defendant’s insurer admitted liability in August 2015 and initiated settlement discussions. However, the claimant’s Form A to PIAB was submitted five days after the statutory deadline. Despite this, the insurer continued discussions without setting a deadline for concluding negotiations.

Later, the defendant attempted to raise the statute of limitations defence, arguing that the claim was time-barred. The key question was whether the insurer’s conduct could prevent them from relying on the statute of limitations. The High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant was estopped from raising the limitation defence due to their conduct.

 

The Role of Murphy v. Grealish in Personal Injury Claims

 

The case of Murphy v. Grealish [2009] IESC 9 established the legal precedent that defendants could be estopped from raising the statute of limitations if their conduct misled the claimant into believing that the claim would not be time-barred. In this case, the defendant’s insurer had admitted liability and engaged in settlement negotiations even after the limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court found that the insurer’s actions had misled the plaintiff into believing the limitation period was no longer an issue.

In Tsiu v. Aramark Ireland, the High Court applied the same principles from Murphy v. Grealish. The court found that the defendant’s conduct—admitting liability, engaging in settlement discussions, and requesting medical reports—had created an expectation that the limitation period would not be enforced. As a result, the defendant was estopped from raising the statute of limitations defence.

 

How Can Estoppel Impact Your Personal Injury Claim?

 

Estoppel can be a powerful tool for claimants if the defendant’s conduct has misled them into believing that the statute of limitations would not apply. If you have been negotiating with an insurer or defendant who has admitted liability or engaged in settlement discussions, and the statute of limitations is about to expire, estoppel may prevent them from using the limitation period as a defence.

If you are in a similar situation, it is important to seek legal advice promptly. An experienced solicitor can assess whether estoppel applies in your case and advise on how to proceed.

 

Conclusion: Defendants Can Be Estopped from Relying on the Statute of Limitations

 

The case of Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland demonstrates that defendants can be estopped from raising the statute of limitations defence if their conduct misleads the claimant into believing that the claim would not be barred by the time limit. This principle of estoppel, supported by previous case law such as Murphy v. Grealish, highlights the importance of careful conduct during settlement negotiations and communications in personal injury claims.

For Claimants: It is vital to act quickly to ensure your personal injury claim is initiated within the statutory time limits. However, you should also be aware that, in some cases, the defendant’s actions may prevent them from raising the statute of limitations as a defence.

For Defendants and Insurers: Ensure that your actions do not create a false impression regarding the statute of limitations. If you admit liability or engage in settlement discussions, do so in a way that does not mislead the claimant into believing the limitation period is not relevant.

If you have been involved in an accident in Ireland and are considering making a personal injury claim, contact a solicitor as soon as possible to discuss your case and ensure that any potential issues regarding limitation periods are addressed.

Understanding Noise Induced Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Personal Injury Claims

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

 

Noise induced hearing loss and tinnitus are injuries which tend to affect those working with heavy/loud machinery such as construction workers or police . Consistent exposure to loud noises without sufficient ear protection can cause permanent damage to your hearing.

If you have been affected by noise induced hearing loss or tinnitus through your workplace, then you may be eligible to bring a claim for compensation against your employer. This article explains what you need to know, should you lose your hearing thanks to your job.

 

What is Noise Induced Hearing Loss?

 

Sometimes known as Industrial Deafness, noise induced hearing loss is a common complaint in industries which rely on heavy machinery to produce goods or services. This industrial injury is one of the most common types of hearing loss you might encounter with the exception of age related hearing impairment.

Often an individual will begin to have difficulty hearing and only when they speak with their primary care physician do they appreciate that it may be due to noise from the workplace.  If this is the case then speak to one of our dedicated hearing loss personal injury solicitors in Northern Ireland. Once we understand the intricacies of your case, we can help guide you smoothly through the process of bringing your compensation claim.

 

Tinnitus: The Other Hearing Related Issue

 

Hearing loss caused by industrial machinery goes hand in hand with tinnitus. This is when a loud ringing in the ears can block out all other sounds. Attacks are random and can be frustrating.

Tinnitus is usually caused by exposing your hearing to loud sounds for prolonged periods. It can be both temporary and permanent. You can learn more about the symptoms of hearing loss and tinnitus from the experts at Healthy Hearing. Incidentally, they report that around 90% of all people suffering tinnitus also have hearing loss issues.

 

Causes of Noise Induced Hearing Loss

 

Exposure to high levels of noise can erode your capacity for accurate hearing.

Imagine you have to use an industrial strength drill day in, day out. Your employer should provide you with adequate protection for your ears. If they fail to do this – and even if that equipment is faulty – then you can end up with permanent hearing damage over time.

Since noise is the key factor in hearing loss of this kind, there are certain job roles which place the employee in greater danger than others. Jobs which might contain exposure to prolonged high volumes include:

  •       Construction workers using heavy duty tools.
  •       Airport operatives dealing with jet engines.
  •       Nightclub staff who regularly hear high volume music.
  •      Agriculture workers using heavy machinery or vehicles.
  •       Factory workers in the manufacturing industry.
  •       Police in law enforcement during weapons training.

 

Symptoms of Tinnitus and Hearing Loss

 

There are signs and symptoms which can indicate that you are suffering from hearing loss. You should look out for the following symptoms:

  •       Having to turn the TV volume up loud to hear it.
  •       Missing people knocking the door or the phone ringing.
  •       Hearing sounds as far away or indistinct.
  •       Being unable to pick out a voice against the backdrop of a busy pub or shop.
  •       Limited tones – if you are losing your hearing then you may not be able to hear the same pitches as you once did.

 

Seeking Compensation for Noise Induced Hearing Loss and Tinnitus

 

If you have the above symptoms then you should schedule a hearing test with your GP. According to the Control of Noise at Work Regulations of 2006, Northern Irish employers have a duty to minimize noises in the workplace and to give you sufficient PPE. If your employer has not done so, then it is time to complain.

Contact Lacey Solicitors Firm today to discuss the details of your hearing loss. Claiming compensation for your losses is easier than you think, when you have the right team in your corner.

 

Call Lacey Solicitors Today on 028 9089 6540.

 

 

Your Guide to Industrial Disease Compensation Claims in Northern Ireland

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

It is possible to bring a claim for compensation against an employer should you or a loved one suffer from an industrial disease or an industrial injury. If you live in Northern Ireland and you require advice from an industrial disease solicitor, Lacey Solicitors may have the answers you need.

 

What is Classed as an Industrial Disease?

 

The Health and Safety at Work Legislation in Northern Ireland set out clear regulations on what an employer must do to provide for the care of an employee. When an employer fails in this duty of care industrial accidents happen.  Industrial injuries and industrial diseases are the possible results.

An industrial illness is one contracted at work, or due to hazardous materials which you work (or worked) with. You must have been employed when the disease, injury, or illness was contracted. These problems often arise due to unsafe working conditions. If your employer did not facilitate PPE or alternatively did not take steps to protect you from industrial injuries during your employment, you may be able to pursue a claim for compensation.

 

Common Examples of Industrial Diseases

 

Thankfully, due to increased awareness and campaigns from the Health and Safety Executive  industrial diseases themselves are no longer common due to improved health and safety in the workplace.  Unfortunately there are some situations where they can still  occur. Our office are regularly instructed in relation to the following types of cases:

  •  Asbestos Related Diseases – Asbestosis is a serious lung condition causing scar tissue and inflammation inside the lungs. Asbestos was a widely used building material up until the early nineties. Construction workers from this era might suffer from this chronic lung condition.
  •  Skin Diseases – Dermatitis and Psoriasis are common skin conditions which occur when the skin comes into contact with certain chemicals. Your employer should provide you with safety gloves and equipment. Otherwise you may have grounds for a claim for compensation.
  •  Repetitive Strain Injuries (RSI) – RSI include Carpal Tunnel syndrome, vibration related white finger, overuse injuries and certain chronic pain syndromes. Read more about Repetitive Strain Injury here.
  • Hearing Loss – If your employment exposed you to continuous loud sounds without ear protection, you could bring a claim for compensation against an employer.

 

How Long Does an Industrial Injury Claim Take?

 

This is one of our most frequently asked questions and often one of the hardest to answer.   Most straightforward industrial disease claims, where liability is admitted and all parties are identified can be brought to a suitable resolution within 12 months from our office being instructed.

If your claim for compensation after an industrial accident is not straightforward, perhaps where the injury is particularly severe, or where parties are unknown, or liability is disputed, it will in all likelihood take longer to resolve.

Our advice, as ever, is to hire a professional legal team to represent and initiate the claims process just as soon as you become aware of the injury.

 

How Much Can I Get in Compensation?

 

There is no way to tell without gaining the advice of an expert. Industrial injury solicitors like Lacey Solicitors are skilled in Northern Irish compensation claim law. Get in touch with our professional, friendly, and reassuringly experienced team today to discuss your industrial injuries claim.

 

Seek Advice on a Potential Industrial Disease/Industrial Injury Claim

 

If you think you may be eligible for compensation due to an industrial injury or disease, then seeking legal advice is the next logical step. Lacey Solicitors have a Belfast branch who are skilled at handling industrial disease claims in Northern Ireland. Contact us now to discuss your situation in greater detail and get the legal advice you require in order to move on with your life.

 

Call Lacey Solicitors Today on 028 9089 6540.

 

 

Severe Weather Related Personal Injury Claims in Northern Ireland

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

 

 

However, attributing an accident solely to poor weather is not enough to explain why an injury or, in the worst cases, a fatality occurred. The key issue lies in the circumstances that allowed the dangerous weather conditions to have such an impact. Was proper risk assessment and preparation in place? Could negligence or oversight have contributed to the situation? These are critical questions to consider when determining the true cause of the incident and those questions can be answered by appointing specialist personal injury solicitors. Seek out a consultation with one of our lawyers if you wish to discuss a personal injury claim in Northern Ireland.

 

Bad Weather Worsens Accident Rates

 

Weather conditions such as heavy rain, snow, ice, and fog can significantly impair visibility, traction, and reaction times, leading to a higher rate of accidents. Additionally, adverse weather can cause dangerous falls, broken bones, and injuries from slipping on icy or wet surfaces. In fact, accidents related to weather conditions, including road traffic collisions (RTAs), hail, snow, and ice-related injuries, rise during colder months.

 

With the ongoing impact of climate change, extreme weather events are expected to become more frequent, exacerbating the risk of personal injuries in the coming years.

 

What Types of Personal Injury Happen in Cold Weather?

 

Winter and adverse weather conditions present various types of accidents. Here are some common weather-related personal injuries you may encounter:

 

Slipping Indoors or Outdoors

 

Slippery surfaces due to ice, snow, or rain can result in falls both indoors and outdoors. In shopping centres, supermarkets, and public areas, wet floors often cause people to slip, leading to broken bones, muscle strains, or soft tissue injuries.

 

Flooding Injuries

 

Flooding can lead to serious injuries, and has become a real threat in some parts of Northern Ireland where it is more prevalent. While drowning is a significant risk, floodwater often contains harmful bacteria, raw sewage, and debris, which can lead to infections and sepsis from cuts and scrapes.

 

Road Traffic Collisions

 

Bad weather is a significant factor in increased RTAs (Road Traffic Accident). Poor visibility affects drivers’ response times. Wind can flip tall vehicles and snow can bring traffic to a standstill. There were 4,977 road traffic accidents from 2023-2024.

 

According to leading UK insurers January is the month with the highest percentage of traffic accidents occurring in wet conditions, accounting for 15.3% of all incidents. It is followed closely by November (14.9%) and February (14.6%). Surprisingly, the warmer summer months still pose a risk, with July and August seeing 9% of accidents occurring in rainy weather. This shows that regardless of the season, drivers should always stay alert when the weather takes a turn for the worse.

 

Outdoor Worker Safety Becomes Compromised in Bad Weather

 

If you are a bricklayer, a roofer, or a day labourer working in construction then the risks associated with the job sharply increase in high winds, rain, or snow. Your employer has a duty of care to keep you safe while you are carrying out your daily duties. Slippery surfaces, falling debris, farming and agriculture incidents, and construction site safety issues all occur in bad weather.

 

The Importance of Hiring a Personal Injury Solicitor

 

If you’ve been involved in an accident due to weather conditions, whether on the road or at work, seeking legal advice is crucial. Personal injury solicitors specialise in representing individuals who have been injured in accidents caused by another party’s negligence, including poor road maintenance, unsafe working conditions, or inadequate safety measures.

Our personal injury checklist can allow you to take the first steps towards recovery.

A solicitor will help you navigate the claims process, gather the necessary evidence, and fight for the maximum compensation you’re entitled to. Compensation can help cover medical expenses, lost wages, and the pain and suffering caused by the accident.

 

Prioritise Safety in Bad Weather and Seek Legal Advice

 

You have only one obligation throughout periods of bad weather and that is to keep yourself and your family safe.  Read our article on how to stay safe in dangerous weather conditions.  Once the bad spell has passed and you are left to deal with the fallout from an injury, it is time to seek legal advice.

Lacey Solicitors Firm include skilled personal injury solicitors who can become your voice in the legal system. Seek out a consultation today to discuss your options.

 

 

 

Speak to an Expert at Lacey Solicitors today.

Are you missing out on quality advice? Get in touch today to speak to one of our experts.

Send Message

Quick Links

Dublin

Ormond Building, 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7, D07 EE37
+353 1 5134375

Belfast

3rd Floor, 18-22 Hill Street, Cathedral Quarter, Belfast, BT1 2LA
+44 28 9089 6540

© 2025 Lacey Solicitors. All Rights Reserved

Made with by VINDICTA®