So here’s a quick analysis – a case study if you like – of this story from the contents on the BBC article:
The Circumstances – what happened?
Corby Borough Council in a clean-up operation on a former steelworks site inadvertently caused toxic chemicals from dust to be released in to the air. This has subsequently caused numerous pregnant women in the area to give birth to children with significant limb deformities. Although the BBC report does not go in to any detail regarding the medical evidence of the case, medical evidence will more than likely have been a part of the backbone behind the strength of this case, with expert opinions comments on the plausibility that the dust caused the defects.
The Allegations of Negligence – what the council did wrong
It is alleged that the council were negligent in their cleanup of the site in allowing the toxic dust to be plumed in to the air. In any case for compensation, a key ingredient for success is what we lawyers call forseeability. This incident appears quite forseeable; a cleanup of a former steelworks site, although I’m not overly knowledgeable on the subject, is a more than plausible reason for the release of the toxic dust. Therefore the council should have taken adequate precaution, which appears not to be the case.
The Result!
The court heard that the council had been negligent in its clean up of the site, and representatives for the council have now stepped down and agreed to drop its challenge to the High Court over the negligence ruling. An out of court settlement has been reached now, and despite the council remaining unwilling to accept liability, they have agreed to pay compensation to the families involved.
So what does this mean? Well according to the information from the report, it appears that the council were to challenge the negligence ruling with the High Court. Having dropped the challenge, it has been agreed that compensation will be paid without the council accepting that they were at fault. This does on occasion happen; the defendant pays out to the victim but refuses to formally accept that they were negligent. It usually means they feel unable to challenge the strength of the case against them, and/or they are simply not willing to accept blame, but will accept responsibility (if that makes sense!). Which in itself is a little bit of a conundrum…
The council boroughs chief executive Chris Mallender stated that (the authority) “made mistakes in its clean-up of the former British Steel site years ago and extends its deepest sympathy to the children and their families“. The council sincerely hopes this apology and the agreement will mean that they can now put their legal battle behind them and proceed with their lives with a greater degree of financial certainty.”
Of course the important aspect of this case is that thankfully, in the end, those suffering and their families can now be compensated. The solicitor to the families, Des Collins, has stated “The agreement recognises the many years of emotional and physical suffering the 19 families have endured and will continue to endure. I pay tribute to the immense determination and spirit the Corby children and their families have shown.”
The families involved are said to be grateful for the apology and the agreement with the council, according to the source. In fact, the council have also reportedly included three other children in the agreement despite the courts ruling in the previous year.
These types of high value cases must of course be handled by an experienced solicitor specialising in the area of personal injury. Only an expert can represent the victim for a claim and make the absolute best of it! So make sure to speak to a specialist if you ever find yourself needing a good solicitor!