The Courts and Impressions
Entertaining speculations is not something that
the courts will ever do, whether the subject at bar be accident claims or
property claims. It belies the entire tradition of the judiciary to determine
cases based purely on facts, to invite motions for reconsideration based purely
on new facts, and to prevent new readings of former cases in the lack of these.
Some people see this fact-based approach of the courts to be too restrictive and
unimaginative. They think that the courts are abusing their privilege of
arbitrating cases by applying rigidly only one standard.


These people are erroneous. In the first place, although using this approach
may be too restrictive, restrictiveness in this case is only for our collective
good. Surely, no one would deny that an interpretation based on a complete set
of facts is much better than one made based on an imperfect set of facts. Do
these people think that lies, for the sake of variety, should supplant or share
the stage with the truth? Second, as regards the charge of want of imagination,
these people should know that the courts is not the place to conjure up
fantastic and chimerical facts merely to satisfy anybody’s creative hunger. The
courts were established to elucidate the truth. If drab methods are the most
effective ways wherein they could do this, then that should not be ascribed as a
fault to them. They are just doing their jobs.


Predictability in Law
Why is it exactly that the courts do not permit
speculations to be included in judicial deliberations? For what reason can
judges restrict such meetings, whether about accident claims or not, to bare
facts? The main reason is that cases decided upon taking into account mere
speculations is tantamount to denigrating the search for truth into the search
for the most popular make-believe. The courts, if ever they are genuinely
interested in deciding cases justly, are right in refusing to take in
speculations because they are, strictly speaking, neither true nor false, and
only those which have been proven true can be talked and written about
intelligently.


Here is a practical dilemma. Suppose we were to decide right now that
speculations should have the same weight or force as a proven statement of fact.
Then what can prevent claimants or defendants from accusing each other of the
worst things they can possible conjure up, for it must be granted that man’s
imagination when once fired up and bound by no rules can stretch to endless
leaps and lengths? How can the courts transact their businesses when the first
step in judicial procedure, the statement of facts, will never be at a close?
Furthermore, how will the outcome of such a case be treated? Any way, we think,
except seriously.

Solicitors and Professionals
A good question to ask when determining whom to ask regarding your accident at work claim is whether or not you should consult a professional or just a law school student. Although people who have the luxury of such a choice are rare since not many people have acquaintances or relatives studying law, it is still pertinent to ask because there are corresponding advantages no matter whom you choose.

For one thing, it is not entirely a bad idea to consult with a law school student because in our educational system, those who have graduated from law-related courses but are still completing their education to become a barrister can offer legal advice even though they cannot offer legal representation yet. Thus, if all you need is advice, then approaching such students can be an enlightening experience. Most of all, such advice can even be dispensed with for free or at a much lower cost than with that of a professional’s. On the other hand, the advantages of asking a professional is that you can be assured that the opinion he will give you is sound and that if you do choose to file a claim that you can trust him to represent you, assuming of course that your case is meritorious.

Vices of Each
It has occurred to not a few that maybe instead of consulting with an accident at work lawyer, they should just approach their relatives or friends currently studying law and ask them whether or not they should file a claim. Aside from the possibility of getting free advice, they could also be enlightened as to their cases’ chances of winning with the same amount of certitude as with a professional. In these senses, asking students may not be a terrible idea.

There are several risks in doing so, however. For one thing, students, as opposed to professionals, do not really possess a complete picture of our jurisprudence yet. Since they are still in the process of learning it, their advice may be imprecise. They might tell you, for example, that you may be compensated for your accident, but this advice may be rendered nugatory without any of you knowing it, because it might be covered by an exception clause, a clause that law school students will not be cognizant of yet except in their final year in law school. This example may be multiplied many times because law school subjects tend to overlap. What is studied now will probably be modified next year. This is a normal process because the law is such a variegated subject and cannot be compartmentalized as neatly as other subjects, such as mathematics or science.

A Question of Plausibility
What is it really that moves the courts to determine whether or not accident at work claims are valid? For surely, being the bastion of logic and rationality, they do not just rely on mere feeling to decide cases. The answer is plausibility. Simply speaking, the courts make up their minds as to the merits of a claim by asking how close to the actual facts of the case is the version being stated by the claimant and the defendant. That is the root, the cornerstone. If we were to reduce the entire complex process of judicial interpretation in one line, we would say that it was the final product of a metaphysical tug-of-war between credibility and impossibility.

To win your claim, therefore, you should strengthen that side of your argument which deals mainly with establishing the plausibility of your story, and reserve for the end that part which attacks the character of the defendant, whether overtly or subtly. By showing the courts how easy to believe your story is, and by only adding so much criticism of the defendant’s character, what you are in fact doing is to prove by your own example. You are in effect telling them that you trust the truth to win your claim.

Ad Hominem Fallacies
Some people demanding accident at work claims disbelieve that ad hominem attacks against their employers are fallacious. For them, proving that their employers were irresponsible and careless even before the accident occurred is one positive point that should be taken in these claimants’ side. A person, they say, who can be proved to be habituated to a certain vice is highly suspect of committing an injurious act in which that certain vice was indeed evident. It does not take a genius to see that there exists, even prior to any legal investigation, that there is a high probability that a broken vase and a clumsy person had some destructive relation.

The answer to these charges, in fact the answer to all character smearing, is the fact that people change. Of course a person who was known to have been expressive of a certain attitude can be expected to continue expressing that same attitude in the near future. The psychological induction which we every day apply regarding others is almost always right. But the human soul and the human mind, unlike objects which can be reduced to laws by induction, are never in stasis. Who can say that a person will not choose to stop acting in a vicious manner starting tomorrow, even if he has done so today? Character assassination is thus untenable. It disregards the unlikely but possible shift in attitudes even by people with low morals.

No win no fee solicitors play an important role in claiming compensation for victims of negligence. They provide expert legal advice on personal injury claims on a no win no fee basis.

No win no fee or Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) pertains to the arrangement between a solicitor and a client. If the case is unsuccessful, the latter will not have to pay the former but should pay for the costs of the opposing party. However, if the case is successful, the client will pay the normal fee to the solicitor plus a success fee. 

How can the client pay for the costs and fees if the case is lost? The after-the-event insurance covers for possible liability of the claimant. It is a kind of legal expense insurance policy purchased after an event. It serves as a protection for any legal costs including disbursements. 

The emergence of the Conditional Fee Agreement helps the poor in pursuing a claim even if their funds are insufficient. 

No win no fee solicitors usually recommends getting the after-the-event insurance to shield the claimant from any financial problems during the litigation process. It is necessary to discuss the details before entering into an agreement.

Responsibilities of Lawyers

No win no fee solicitors or lawyers carry responsibilities in processing the claim.

The initial interview with the client provides an opportunity for the assigned lawyer to know more about the person and the accident he was involved with. He takes note of the details like the type of accident, the kind of injury or illness, the place and time of the incident and other pertinent information. The legal counsel analyses the situation and the probability of its success. Upon careful analysis, the lawyer gathers evidence such as medical report from the expert medical practitioner, police report, statement from the witnesses, photographs and proof of financial loss. The medical report is essential in claiming for compensation. It shows the nature of illness or injury suffered by the person, extent of the pain, treatment and recovery period. This determines the amount of compensation that can be granted to the individual. The police report is needed especially in the case of road traffic collision. A witness statement can give a clearer view of the incident. Photographs of the accident scene can help in the investigation. Proof of loss of income, receipts and expenses shows the financial impact of the accident to the individual. The above-mentioned pieces of evidence are vital in achieving a successful case. 

They say that a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all. The problem with people knowing 5 percent is that they start making up the rest of the 95 percent.

As a lawyer, this is the problem I face all the time with clients who like to conduct their own research about their cases. This makes my giving them personal injury claim advice tougher because they can muddle up any strategy or procedure.

I would like to be clear that I do not mind a client who asks a lot of questions. In fact, I prefer one who asks questions because I know where they are coming from. And when I know more about what they want, I can guide them to get it.

The clients whom I find difficult to deal with are the “know-it-alls,” the people who think they are better lawyers when all their exposure to the law is reading up on a few articles in the internet or watching several seasons of law programs on the television.

It is these people who are a danger to themselves because not only do they ignore any
personal injury claim advice I give them, they unexpectedly decide to do something outrageous without consulting me in the first place.

One of the biggest problems I face with stubborn clients like these is that they sometimes decide to sign an agreement when a little money is thrown their way by the other side.

For many, twenty thousand quid sounds good, the agreement my clients end up signing may state that they are admitting that the accident was their fault in the first place.

And while the current claim may be settled, it opens them up to future litigation. One example is if other people happen to be injured in the same incident, my clients now become liable for their compensation.

To avoid any problems, I advice clients to listen to the personal injury claim advice their lawyers give them. If they do not trust their lawyers enough to listen to them, then they should change lawyers and get someone they will listen to.

Here are some tips on how to prevent work accidents. It can be applied to any industry. Read on and make sure to practice in your workplace.

Obey the law.
Sounds so stiff and commanding? No not at all! It’s a reminder that will spare lives from an accident. It sounds simple. It is easier said than done. But it’s worth it. Follow the health and safety law and it will help prevent accident.

Both employer and employee need to dance in tango. What? Dance in tango? It takes two to tango. So both parties need to dance with the music. The first one needs to be responsible to provide a safe and healthy place for the second. Employees should follow to avoid accident. Training should be provided and should be attended. Safety clothing should be worn, maintained and stored. Good housekeeping can make a difference. A simple cleaning of wet floor will save someone from slipping. Simple yet it can be an extra ordinary task.

Get organised.
Many work accidents happen because people are disorganised.  Things like cluttered cable, crumpled carpet, scattered tools on the floor, messed up table and supplies thrown on the floor. These are obstruction that might harm individuals. If only the workers have an attitude of returning items after use or organizing all the materials, it will not injure others. Store all the materials properly so that it won’t scatter around. Organise everything from paper clips to big boxes.
 
Be careful all the time.
Always be careful. It’s a piece of advice that is meaningful. Being considerate of others counts a lot. One should not be selfish to think not only of himself but also take care of others. This applies to all industries working in the office, retail, food service, manufacturing, mining, transport and many others. If a worker is irresponsible, others might be affected by his negligence. If a machine was not maintained properly, the next person might hurt himself if it’s defective. 

Obey, organize and careful – three words that can be helpful to the working people. Go on and try to practice it. It’s effective.

How accident claims ever get to be completed at all has always been a wonder to me.

I am aware of course that injury claims get settled every day. Some plaintiffs, unable to bear the burden of a protracted lawsuit, choose to drop their cases altogether. Or this can happen to the defendant. There are cases too when the case gets settled by the court, after many rounds of procedure by personal injury lawyers.

It is in the last of these that I am interested in. As a philosophy major, I am infatuated with the idea of how the truth ever gets to the fore when people file accident claims.

For one thing, the claimant can only imperfectly understand the facts of his case. For he participated in it. He was not a spectator who could coolly judge of what really happened. More likely, his version of the event will be one that exonerates his guilt or negates it altogether.

Next, he will then be compelled by the system to talk about his imperfect version of the truth. This would not be a problem at all except language is an imperfect instrument in itself to transmit facts. In fact, I would even go so far to say that the moment we articulate facts, we subject them to the restrictions of grammar and so lose their authenticity.

But this is not all. As if transmitting his imperfect version of the truth using an imperfect instrument of communication were not enough, it must be added that this doubly problematic event is aggravated furthermore by the fact that the agent who will receive this corrupted information can only imperfectly understand it too. For lawyers will never be able to remember everything, nor will they be interested in everything that their clients say.

Finally, the imperfect knowledge which was transmitted imperfectly and received imperfectly will have to undergo one more round of communication. The lawyer, then, will have to represent his client to the defendant or the judge.

How much changed the truth will be after all of these events is truly something interesting. But alas, it seems only for us philosophy majors. Highly ironic that those who have least to do with claiming are the same people most interested in the truth. No puzzle is more enigmatic than reality.

I do not think it at all bad if anyone encounters trouble in his life.

This is not to say that I enjoy watching other people suffer. I once saw someone who had an accident on the street, an accident which he used as a basis for his personal injury claims. Unfortunately for him, his claims lost because the defendant was the local government, and well, nobody wins against the government.

But there was something else that he won though. He won his right to live. After the event, this man discovered that he had been taking his life for granted. He saw that more than caring for his family, his work, and his friends, he was only breathing and passing through his very existence. A sort of auto-pilot mode, if that makes sense. Not anymore.

As soon as he recovered from his shattered kneecaps, he asked himself what it was that he really wanted. He found out that he wanted to be community worker. So he quit his job writing speeches for sleazy politicians and applied for an opening at a non-profit organization specializing in giving free medical assistance to the poor. A sort of dignified charity work. He went there and won the position. Perhaps he also won his freedom. A passport out of the live he never wanted to live.

Troubles, as I see it, are not necessarily a bad thing. They are merely the short circuits which jolt the faulty wiring of our lives, reminding us that somewhere something needs to be fixed. And by us. Thus, troubles are the helpers we never positively acknowledge, and even detract. The tragedy of man lies in his inability to see who are his real friends and enemies.

Another time, I saw a person who was too shy to be around women. In his apprehension before going on the first date of his entire adult life, he crashed his vehicle and incurred whiplash. The person he crashed onto also incurred whiplash and filed personal injury claims against him. Mr. Shy Guy was forced to settle—and to cancel his date. But afterwards, realizing that his date still wanted to continue their forfeited night out, his confidence grew. It was as if, having encountered the worst thing that could have happened, and still be in “the game,” as he used to tell me, he discovered that maybe his car crash wasn’t such a bad thing after all.

That was what I was telling him all along. Troubles are the mirrors of our soul and the gateways of chance. They show us who we are not and who we can be.