header-logo header-logo

22 September 2023 / Vijay Ganapathy , Catriona Ratcliffe
Issue: 8041 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal injury update: 22 September 2023

138499
Vijay Ganapathy & Catriona Ratcliffe discuss recent developments in vicarious liability, proving breach of duty in historical industrial disease cases, & limitation in fatal claims
  • A local council was found not vicariously liable for sexual abuse reported by a child placed in care.
  • The court ruled on whether a defendant should be held in breach in a historic asbestos exposure case involving low levels of asbestos exposure.
  • The court decided whether to exercise its discretion in a case where limitation had apparently expired before death.

Of the cases tried in recent months, three stand out as they relate to areas where the law is changing. One of these concerns vicarious liability which is an area that has seen a series of groundbreaking rulings being handed down over the last few years.

In such cases defendants are not strictly at fault themselves but, in the circumstances, it is considered ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to hold them accountable, for example, where an employer is found liable for an employee’s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll