It’s a recognized fact that riding a motorcycle can be dangerous even if the rider is taking every possible safety precaution.
Being a member firm of the Brain Injury Group and as one of the UK’s leading firms of solicitors specialising in catastrophic injury claims we have seen first hand, the devastating consequences road accidents can have on both victims and their loved ones.
Accidents by their very nature are unexpected and largely unpredictable. On the other hand, when it comes to accidents in the workplace there are a variety of solutions that can help you avoid a personal injury when people are working dangerous jobs.
According to the NHS, the majority of adults in the UK will suffer some form of gum disease during their lifetime.
When it comes to dangerous workplaces construction sites are ranked amongst some of the most hazardous.
Being surrounded by heavy machinery, materials being loaded and unloaded and unique hazards and obstacles seemingly at every turn, it can be difficult to avoid personal injury.
Thoughts of revving up a bike’s engine and opening up the throttle and heading out on the open road is what many motorcyclists crave.
For some, there is no better feeling than the sound of the engine, the wind in your face and nothing but you and an endless run of asphalt.
You know those buttons at places like airports and service stations that customers can press to show that they feel happy, unhappy, or indifferent about the service they have received? Well, it seems that Sports Direct has implemented something similar to discover how staff feel about the working conditions at one of its warehouses.
Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley and others
Thousands of Asda employees will have waited with bated breath for the latest development in their equal pay claims.
That development was in the form of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) decision on Asda’s appeal. An employment tribunal had decided that these Asda employees (almost all female) were entitled to compare themselves, for the purposes of their ‘work of equal value’ claims, against mainly male distribution employees who earned more. Notably, those distribution employees were based at depots and not at the stores in which the women worked.