A claimant will be entitled to claim for the cost of medical treatment as well as any other medical costs, as long as they are necessary and reasonable. There is no obligation on a claimant to use the National Health Service (NHS) (see section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 (LR(PI)A 1948)). LR(PI)A 1948, s 2(4) means that the defendant cannot argue that the claimant should have used the NHS. However, the defendant can argue that the claimant is unlikely to incur the expenses. A claimant is entitled to claim the costs

See the following: • Q&A: Can you direct me to any relevant guidance or case law in respect of contributory negligence for not using lights when cycling in the dark?

A victim of a crime of violence can apply for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. There have been a number of compensation schemes in place to facilitate this. The two most recent schemes are the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008, which applies for all applications lodged after 3 November 2008, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, which applies for all applications received by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) on or after 27 November 2012. Applications for compensation are made to the CICA which will determine whether the applicant has suffered a qualifying criminal injury, whether they are eligible to receive compensation and, if so, the level of compensation to be awarded. For further guidance regarding the

If the highway is maintainable at public expense, the relevant highway authority is under a duty to maintain it. The duty to maintain highways, set out under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980), is owed to all members of the public using the highway for passage and includes: • repair of defects (commonly involving a surface that is disrupted or disturbed). This has been described as a duty to maintain 'the fabric of the road including its sub structure such as its drains' (see Goodes v

In the case of Razumas v Ministry of Justice the claimant brought a clinical negligence claim against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) because while he was in prison he received medical care that was deficient resulting in the amputation of his leg. One of the questions considered in this case was whether the negligence was the responsibility of the MoJ which had overall responsibility for the prisons in which he was incarcerated. It was held that the MoJ owed only a limited direct

In Lewis v Denye, Parcq LJ stated: ‘In order to establish the defence of contributory negligence, the defendant must prove, first, that the claimant failed to take “ordinary care for himself” or, in other words, such care as a reasonable man would take for his own safety, and, second, that his failure to take care was a contributory cause of the accident.’ A plea of contributory negligence should be treated as setting up want of care by the claimant for their own safety, whether in the circumstances of the accident the claimant owed a duty to the defendant or not. See Commentary: Introduction: Bingham & Berrymans' Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases [7.60]. The prerequisite for contributory negligence is causative fault on both sides. The court must apportion to fairly reflect respective responsibility. This can be subdivided into two parts: • the comparative blameworthiness of

The usual principles of the tort of negligence apply to claims for damages arising out of accidents that occur on the road. The Personal Injury module has a subtopic dealing with liability for personal injury arising out of road traffic accidents and Practice Note: Duties of the road user may be useful. In

The following rules of The Highway Code may be relevant. According to Rule 195, as a motorist approaches a zebra crossing they must look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop. Furthermore, a motorist must give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing. Rule 19 provides guidance to pedestrians using zebra crossings. Rule 79 of the Highway Code advises cyclists not to ride across a zebra crossing but to dismount and wheel the bicycle across. As the Highway Code makes clear, pedestrians should use zebra crossings where available, but that does not give them an absolute right to step into the road. Generally, where a car strikes a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, it is very unlikely that the driver will be able to avoid liability, but, on the facts, the claimant may be vulnerable to an allegation of contributory

Delay in diagnosis Delayed diagnosis cases more frequently become contentious because of causation issues. Almost all clinical negligence claimants will (obviously) come to their clinician with major risks to their health already in place. Establishing whether, and precisely what, additional loss and damage has been caused because of medical negligence is the issue at the heart of this area of practice. For further information on the common issues which arise in claims relying on an allegation that a diagnosis has been negligently delayed, see the Practice Note: Delay in medical treatment. Loss of life expectation and physical or psychological distress due to delayed diagnosis can be difficult to quantify. For further information, see Commentary: Diagnosis: Clinical Negligence [21.14]. Case law The following cases may be of assistance, but each case will depend on its individual facts. A duty

Highway Code Rules 14 and 15 of The Highway Code provides the following guidance to pedestrians: ‘Rule 14 (Parked vehicles If you have to cross between parked vehicles, use the outside edges of the vehicles as if they were the kerb. Stop there and make sure you can see all around and that the traffic can see you. Make sure there is a gap between any parked vehicles on the other side, so you can reach the pavement. Never cross the road in front of, or behind, any vehicle with its engine running, especially a large vehicle, as the driver may not be able to see you. Rule 15 (Reversing vehicles) Never cross behind a vehicle which is reversing, showing white reversing lights or sounding a warning.’ Rule 202 of the Highway Code provides the following

A joint venture in which each of the shareholders holds 50% of the issued shares (ie a deadlocked joint venture) requires the unanimous agreement of both the shareholders on all decisions to be taken by the joint venture company (either at board or shareholder level). Therefore, if the shareholders cannot reach agreement on any matter, a deadlock will arise. However, a deadlock may also arise where a joint venture is not held on a 50:50 basis, in relation to reserved matters which require the approval of all joint venture parties. Common deadlock procedures include: • escalation of the issue to the shareholders' chairmen or chief executives—it is fairly usual for the first stage of a deadlock resolution procedure to involve escalation of the deadlock situation to the shareholders' chairmen or chief executives. It will concentrate the minds of the managers involved with the joint venture as they may be unwilling to have to refer the matter higher up in their own organisation and the chairmen or chief executives to whom the

It isassumed that referrence is made to a services agreement between two businesses in an unregulated supply sector. A comprehensive case law search is beyond the scope of the LexisAsk service. However, the following content will be useful. There may be times when the parties want to vary prices under the contract. In particular, a supplier will be concerned to protect itself against inflation rates increasing over the course of a longer-term agreement. An agreement may therefore include clauses which allow a supplier to increase prices (eg in line with a prices index). For more information, see Practice Note: Price, payment