header-logo header-logo

11 October 2007
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal Injury Update

CLAIM FOR DEPENDENCY >>
INTERPRETATION OF FAA 1976 >>
HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE >>

FATAL ACCIDENTS: SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO DEATH A BAR TO RECOVERY

In Thompson v Arnold [2007] EWHC 1875, [2007] All ER (D) 38 (Aug) Mr Justice Langstaff, sitting in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, re-emphasised an important potential pitfall for those advising claimants whose injuries are such that they might lead to death in the near future.
It has been well established, since the case of Read v The Great Eastern Railway Company (1868) LR 3 QB 555, that a dependant will be precluded from pursuing a claim for dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976) in circumstances where the deceased has settled his or her outstanding claim for damages against the defendant tortfeasor during his or her lifetime. This follows from the wording of the FAA 1976 which, by virtue of s 1(1), permits a dependant to maintain an action for damages under that act only if the deceased would (if death had not ensued) have been entitled

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll