Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
|
Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response. |
|
 |
Negligence - Personal Injury Accidents
Causation: Facts: Sufficiency of evidence: Inferences to be drawn from evidence: Manhole covers: Slips: Slippery substances: Site inspections: Foreseeable danger
A conclusion that a contaminant that had caused the respondent to slip had been present upon a manhole cover during a site inspection by the appellant had been within the ambit of inferences to have been drawn from the evidence.
Garner -v- Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust (2004)
The defendant (W) appealed a decision that it was liable for personal injuries sustained by the claimant (G) during a fall at its hospital. G had slipped on a wet slippery substance which had collected within a depression in a galvanised manhole cover. W stated that if it had been aware from its system of site inspections that the manhole cover had been hazard it would have ensured that the situation had become safe. It further stated that shortly before the accident the manhole cover had formed part of a site inspection and had not been found to have been in an unsafe condition. The judge's central basis for finding against W was that staining that had been visible on the manhole cover could only have represented the presence of a substance that had accumulated over a period of time and must have therefore been present at the time of the site inspection. By this appeal W argued that that finding had not been open to the judge on the evidence.
HELD: The combination of the evidence before the judge suggested that the staining on the manhole cover was due to a slippery or slimey contaminant at a time when it could and should have come to W's attention during a site inspection. Accordingly, the conclusion reached by the judge had been within the ambit of inferences of fact to have been drawn from the evidence.
Appeal dismissed.
"Lawtel": 1.3.04
|
|
Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
|
Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
|
Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
|
Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject. |
|
