Several personal injury claims are being made after a large gas explosion in Shrewsbury caused several people serious harm.

The explosion took place back in January on the corner of Bridge Street and Smithfield Road in the Shropshire town. The blast ripped through a block of flats and left parts of the town centre closed for over a month. The incident also left 12 people injured.

Now a legal wrangle in ensuing over who is liable for the incident. The BBC has reported the contents of a letter sent from solicitors acting on behalf of the National Grid to BT Legal. It claims that the gas leak was caused by the stress put on a gas main by the weight of a BT chamber. They claim BT are negligent for building so close to the gas main, breaking the Health and Safety Executive’s guidelines.

The question of liability is crucial as a number of compensation claims have been started in regards to the incident. One of these is that of twenty year old Sarah Pearse who lived in a flat close by. She suffered burns in the blast and spent weeks in hospital recovering. It has also left her with panic and anxiety attacks.

A builder is attempting to claim compensation from a homeowner after falling from a ladder while working on the property.

Labourer Tomasz Kmiecic was working on the home of Mrs Isaacs in North London when the accident occurred. He had been contracted by Armag Decoration to repair a leaky garage roof. However, it later turned out that the contractors were operating as ‘cowboys’, and did not have the legally required liability insurance. Hence, after Mr Tomasz Kmiecic suffered the accident he could not make a claim.

Mr Kmiecic slipped from his ladder while performing the work and suffered devastating injuries. His left elbow was shattered and he has been unable to work since. He had asked Mrs Isaacs if he could have access to the roof via a bedroom window in the house as his ladder was too short for the job. She refused as she did not want her carpets to get dirty.

He is now claiming compensation form Mrs Isaacs, trying to prove she is legally liable for his injuries after refusing him access to the house.

A previous hearing at the High Court put the blame firmly at the feet of the contractor and not Mrs Isaacs. However, the court of appeal has just granted him permission to appeal against this decision although no date has been set yet. The Judge acknowledged that the decision would leave home owners in horror, and Mrs Isaac’s law team said that the claim goes against common sense.

A man who was left badly burned by CS gas sprayed by a policeman into his face has won his battle for compensation.

David Johnston has a history of mental health problems and has been diagnosed as schizophrenia. In January 2006 he had become depressed at the thought that his children from a former partner were moving abroad. He took an overdose of his medication mixed with alcohol and was found wandering the streets by a friend.

The friend took him home and an ambulance was called. Due to his psychological state, the police were called as this is standard practice in such circumstances. A court heard last week that Mr Johnston allegedly left his house shouting abuse but at seeing the police officer in question held his hands out in a gesture of submission to show he was no threat. Despite this, and the fact that the officer was aware Mr Johnston was mentally ill and in need of help, he sprayed CS gas at him copiously.

The CS gas left Mr Johnston with burns to the face, neck, back, chest and legs. He was treated in hospital immediately. A jury has found that the officer used unreasonable force and Mr Johnston is entitled to compensation for his treatment.

Compensation payments to English and Welsh prisoners in the last year have doubled over payouts made during the previous year.

Figures are released in a report by the Press Association after submitting a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice. Total compensation payments for the period 2009/2010 amounted to £3.2 million pounds. This compares to just
£1.6 million in the previous yearly period.

The bulk of this payment – £1.6 million – was paid as a result of medical negligence. This was split between just 12 separate cases and comes as a result of below standard levels of medical care resulting in injuries and suffering.

More surprising, are the figures that highlight that £530,000 compensation was paid to victims of assault, not at the hands of fellow inmates, but at the hands of prison staff. Also, nearly £260,000 was paid to prisoners who due to administration errors were detained for longer than they should have been.

333 successful claims were brought by prisoners in the last year, with the Ministry of Justice settling 322 of them out of court.

A total of just over £13,000,000 has been paid in compensation to prisoners over the last five years. This figure has led to campaign groups calling for the prison service to do more to improve care of prisoners to cut this figure down.

A man who suffered from lead poisoning after being exposed at work is suing his former solicitor for hindering him from claiming compensation.

Frederick Bloomfield became ill while he was working for Frys Metals in South London. The company make solder and flux using a combination of metals and chemicals. While he was working at the factory during the mid 1990s his blood levels were monitored, and unacceptable levels of lead were discovered. He was provided with a respirator to prevent anymore exposure, but the filters for this were not provided and he was continuously exposed to dangerous levels of metals and chemicals.

The Bury Free Press is reporting that he suffered from fatigue, peripheral neuropathy and abdominal complaints and continued to do so years after he lost his job in August 1995. Medical examinations in the early years of this decade confirmed that Mr Bloomfield had suffered as a result of exposure to lead and other chemicals.

In 2004 he approached Websters Solicitors to handle a claim for compensation against the company. However his claim was thrown out in 2008 as it had run over the legal time period available to make a claim. Mr Bloomfield is now claiming that Websters delayed the claim for two years ruining his chance of compensation, and are therefore liable for the damages themselves. He also claims that Websters should have asked the court for an extension to his time period to claim when his case was thrown out, and that they had failed to keep him informed on the progress of his case.

He is now seeking £300,000 in damages from his former solicitors.

Teenager Natasha Caley Winbourne was just six years old when a devastating accident changed her life forever. She was playing on an uneven grass bank at her local primary school – St Peter’s in Ardingly, East Sussex – as her foot stuck in a hole on the ground and she tripped over. She smashed her head against the concrete playground adjacent to the bank and suffered serious a head injury.

She has now entered a writ to the High Court in London, seeking damages of up to £100,000 for the injuries she sustained in the accident back in the summer of 1999. Her team claim that the council are responsible, as there were four large holes in the grass bank at the time and as a result, children should not have been allowed to play on the unsafe surface.

The accident has left her with a history of headaches, mood swings and a personality disorder. Her treatment involved regular attendance at Great Ormond Street Hospital and attendance at specialist mental health groups.

The council is denying liability for the accident, and is intending to fight the allegation of liability with the due court process. The outcome of the personal injury claim will be decided later.

A woman who suffered injuries after scaffolding collapsed on top of her has won her personal injury compensation claim.

The Wiltshire Times newspaper is reporting that Sharlene McKenna was visiting the Corsley Show in Warminster, Wiltshire when the accident occurred in August last year. She was stood beside a scaffolding tower with her 14 month old daughter in her arms and her family and dog beside her. The tower collapsed without warning and tumbled down on top of them. Mrs McKenna took most of the impact on her back and suffered injury. Luckily the only other to suffer injury was the family dog Toby, who suffered a head injury.

Mrs McKenna suffered bruising and had to take time off work to recover. She admits to being terrified by the accident.

The Health and Safety Executive investigated the accident and the company who were using the scaffolding – Action Entertainments – were given training on scaffolding safety.

Mrs McKenna sought compensation from Action Entertainments, who were using the scaffolding as part of their work supplying stunt men to the show. They agreed to pay her £4,700 in damages.

An office worker is seeking up to £300,000 compensation after falling off a chair at work.

Gian-Paul De Vito-Tracey worked at the Department of Work and Pensions in a role helping disabled people. In 2008 he was given a new office swivel chair to use at work. Unfortunately Mr De Vito-Tracey fell off this new chair and hit his head on a wall. His legal team will argue that the accident has left him 80% disabled with “permanent effects”.

The Sun newspaper is reporting that his team will also argue that the accident has left him with serious shortcomings in finding employment and has “downgraded his intellectual functioning”.

In legal papers submitted to court, Mr De Vito-Tracey’s injuries are described as “slowed speed of information processing and impaired executive function”. As well as this he is said to suffer from “severe verbal communication difficulty and mild to moderate word-finding difficulties”. These injuries are reported with the help of a neuropsychologist.

Gian-Paul De Vito-Tracey is now seeking compensation for the accident, alleging that the chair did not meet regulations. He is seeking damages up to £300,000.

A pensioner who had his car windows smashed in by a policeman with a baton is making a compensation claim for the stress he has suffered.

The Western Mail newspaper is reporting that 70 year old Robert Whatley was pulled over while driving his Range Rover on a country lane. Camera footage of the incident shows the driver side window being hit repeatedly – a total of 15 times – with a baton. Shards of glass can be seen flying everywhere both inside and out of the vehicle. Another officer is seen standing on the bonnet of the 4×4 kicking in the windscreen. Mr Whatley was then pulled from the drivers seat.

The incident followed a 17 minute “chase” during which time Mr Whatley did not exceed the speed limit once. He had originally been stopped for not wearing a seatbelt. Before he was issued a fixed penalty he drove off as he mistakenly thought he had been dealt with and he felt in desperate need of the medicine he takes for his heart condition which prevents strokes. During the chase he claims he was confused and was of the belief the police following him were giving him a police escort home for his medicine. He later admitted to minor motoring offences.

The two officers involved have been removed from operational duty, and an investigation has begun by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the incident by Gwent Police.

He has now reportedly begun a legal claim for compensation claiming he has suffered greatly with stress since the incident, reporting having terrified flashbacks of his ordeal.

A son who sued his mother for not stopping his father beating him when he was a child has lost his claim for compensation in a High Court decision.

The unnamed 32 year old man had reported to the court that his father would beat him up to 10 times a day, often using instruments to inflict pain, such as belts or electrical cable. He alleged his mum helped in this by reporting her son’s misbehaviours to her husband.

His legal team argued that a parent should take reasonable steps to protect the safety of their child. In the case of his mother, they argued that she should have divorced his father and got an injunction to stop the beatings. In court the woman reported how the man’s father had been raised by an order of Christian brothers who believed in strict physical discipline and saw nothing wrong in harsh punishment.

Two of the man’s brothers and sisters have already sued their father although he as yet has not paid them any compensation. However, Mrs Justice Thirlwall ruled against the man’s claim against his mother.