Accident insurance is a contract to pay a sum of money in the event of the insured sustaining accidental injury as defined in the insurance policy.

Originally produced in partnership with Sue Brown. Updated in partnership with Andrew Wilson. Assimilated law is the name given to retained EU law (REUL) which remains in force after the end of 2023. The re-categorisation of REUL (and associated terms) to assimilated law reflects a change in its status and treatment under UK law, in that it is generally to be interpreted according to ordinary domestic law and principles. For more information, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. This Practice Note refers to UK Rome II, Regulation (EC) 864/2007. This regulation is applied when determining applicable law in cases in which the harmful event constituting a tort occurred on or after 1 January 2021. Originally known as Retained Rome II, since 1 January 2024 it is known as Assimilated Rome II—the change is to the name only and not the provisions within the regulation. Case law may refer to the regulation using either name. For ease of reference, the regulation is referred to as UK Rome II in this Practice Note. This Practice Note

The Conventions There are two Conventions to consider governing the liability of air carriers for loss, injury and damage sustained in the course of, or arising out of, international carriage by air. The purpose of these Conventions is to harmonise the law on these issues. Warsaw Convention The first of these Conventions was the Warsaw Convention, signed in 1929 and effective from 1933. The Convention was then amended at the Hague in 1955 by adoption of the Hague Protocol and from then on was known as the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague in 1955. The Convention applied only between signatory nations. If one of the parties was a signatory to the Warsaw Convention, while the other was a party to the Hague Protocol only, there would be no mutual ground for international litigation. Montreal Convention The Warsaw Convention was then replaced by the Montreal Convention which was signed in 1999 and came into force in 2003. Pursuant to the Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2002, SI 2002/263, which

Under Review: This Practice Note is currently being reviewed as part of our ongoing editorial processes to identify any updates or further practical guidance that may be helpful. Almost all accidents at sea are governed by the Athens Convention (the Convention), which is given effect in the UK by section 183 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (MSA 1995). It is important to note that the Convention was subject to substantial amendment pursuant to the Protocol of 2002. Those amendments are contained in the ‘Consolidated Convention’. From 31 December 2012, the EU adopted Regulation (EC) 392/2009 in order to implement the 2002 Protocol. The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers by Sea) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/3152, implemented this EU Regulation in the UK. The Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/649, amends the EU Regulation with references to the EU replaced with the UK. Otherwise, the 2002 Protocol came into effect on 23 April 2014. For full details of the implementation of the 2002 Protocol, practitioners should refer to a specialist text. The

This Practice Note deals with the general obligations including risk assessments and prevention of risk, health and safety arrangements and the provision of information and training. It also covers duties of employees and outside workers. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3242 lay down a framework of obligations on employers to prevent or minimise the risk of an accident in the workplace. Post 1 October 2013 On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) came into force. For workplace accidents occurring from that date, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of health and safety statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. One such exception is in relation to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3242, regs 16 and 17, which still impose civil liability in respect of new or expectant mothers. See Duties relating to special employees and outside workers below. Practitioners now have to prove the common

This Practice Note deals with the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (MHO Regs 1992), SI 1992/2793. These regulations set out employers’ duties relating to manual handling operations. Under the regulations, an employer should so far as is reasonably practicable avoid the need for employees to undertake any manual handling involving a risk of injury. Where it is not reasonably practicable to avoid the need to undertake any manual handling operations, they should undertake a risk assessment and take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable. The impact of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) in manual handling cases is considered. Given that the regulations introduce clear instruction on the approach to both risk and risk reduction, it is difficult to see how the regulations will not inform the common law. Post 1 October 2013 On 1 October 2013, ERRA 2013, s 69 came into force. For workplace accidents occurring from that date, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of statutory duty by

Post 1 October 2013 Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) was implemented on 1 October 2013. Many practitioners will, of course, be aware of the significance of the reform. For workplace accidents that occurred on or after that date, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. As far as the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2966 (amended by the Personal Protective Equipment at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (PPER 2022), SI 2022/8) are concerned, these do not provide for civil liability to follow from a breach. However, it is worth noting the case of Wetherell v Student Loans Company Ltd involving a claimant who claims to suffer from tinnitus caused by a defective telephone headset provided by the student loans company. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/104/EC on work equipment which imports a form of strict liability was capable of direct effect and could

Most road traffic cases turn on their particular facts. There are few hard and fast rules. However, a body of case law has evolved over the past century that provides helpful guidance in a number of familiar situations. The decisions on the facts of particular cases should not be mistaken for principles of law. However, previous decisions often give a helpful indication of how the issue of liability is likely to be resolved. Roundabouts Rules 184–190 of the Highway Code set out what motorists should do when approaching, and while on a roundabout, motorists should give way to traffic approaching from the right unless directed otherwise, eg by traffic lights. They should also adjust their speed and position to fit in with traffic conditions. Rule 186 of the Highway Code gives guidance for correct signalling but motorist should be aware that road users already on a roundabout may not be signalling correctly or at all. Common types of accidents at roundabouts are caused by: • a failure to wait for a clear space before

Post 1 October 2013 On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) rewrote section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). In relation to accidents occurring at work from 1 October 2013, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (W(HSW) Regs 1992), SI 1992/3004 do not provide for civil liability to arise from a breach. In the circumstances, claimant practitioners are left to rely on a breach of a workplace regulation as support for a claim in negligence. The regulations are of greatest relevance and use to claimant practitioners where they set out a framework of steps or measures required of an employer to ensure safety. The most obvious example is in those provisions which set out a ‘hierarchy’ of measures, typically of the assessment of risk, followed by steps to be taken to minimise identified risks. They avail

This Practice Note considers the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998), SI 1998/2306 and the common law duty to provide and maintain safe work equipment. PUWER 1998 sets out employers’ duties in relation to all types of machinery, appliances, apparatus, tools and installations used at work. Under PUWER 1998, employers must provide suitable work equipment, maintain that equipment, inspect it after installation or assembly and provide suitable information and training on its use. Post 1 October 2013 On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) came into force. For workplace accidents occurring from that date, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of health and safety statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998), SI 1998/2306 do not provide for civil liability to arise from a breach. In the circumstances, claimant practitioners are left to rely on a breach of a regulation as support for a claim in negligence. However,

Post-1 October 2013 On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) came into force. For workplace accidents occurring from that date, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of health and safety statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. Practitioners must therefore bring claims in negligence. The relevant statutory provisions may nevertheless inform the standard of care expected in workplace settings and can be cited in statements of case as outlining the procedures for identifying and assessing risk and implementing measures in light of those assessments. Claims should be based in negligence relying on breach of a regulation as evidence of the negligence. The claimant will (usually) need to prove that the defendant failed to take all steps reasonably practicable to comply with the regulation. Defendant practitioners should be alive to this and any opportunities to argue that the defendant took all reasonable care. In order to establish negligence the claimant will need to prove that: • the harm was foreseeable,

This Practice Note examines liability for accidents in schools, discussing case law that illustrates the factors that may distinguish a successful claim against a school or its owners from an unsuccessful claim. These factors include duty of care, vicarious liability, contributory negligence, foreseeable consequences, causation and proximity, the age, disposition and mental capacity of the child, the level of supervision expected in a school and the extent to which the child was at the material time under the care or control of the school. Accidents happen in schools Children are often injured without any fault on the part of any person. They are by definition young and inexperienced. Equally, they cannot expect to go through life without taking any risks and when they do take a risk, often (through inexperience of life) unknowingly or underestimating the level of risk, sometimes they will be injured. Accidents do happen and 'not every misfortune occurring on school premises attracts compensation', according to the Court of Appeal in Richards v Bromley London Borough. The law reports are