HAVS Symposium

Bookings are coming in for the symposium, so thank you to all for that.

I think the main point of a blog is to consider new matters, and thus generate comment on them. so, for example, I use my personal blog (if anyone’s interested in horses!) to talk about good and bad things that are happening that day with my horse, with occasional diversions into the news or a holiday.

So I see this blog as to reflect anything new that is happening legally, medically or in the engineering field in relation to vibration & HAVS.

given that it is still august, there’s nothing new legally to blog about (unless someone knows different??). there was a recent limitation case (Field v British Coal), but on NIHL rather than HAVS; however, I have no doubt that analogies will be made in future HAVS cases - can a man who has symptoms which he thinks (with reason, as Mr Field had reason) are caused by something other than vibration, be said to have had knowledge at the time he got his symptoms, rather than at the later date when he found out the actual cause?

the earlier limitation case of Furniss v Firth Brown (also NIHL) is also interesting on “significant injury”, and it will be interesting to see how the debate develops in HAVS matters - at what point will an injury be thought to be significant in THIS context

a search in Bailii today confirmed my recollection that the last two HAVS cases to trouble the Court of Appeal were Norton v Corus and Kew v Bettamix, reported, respectively, on the 13th & 14th November 2006.

It will be interesting to see what happens next…

Claire Hodgson

This entry was posted on Monday, September 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.