Accordingly,
when evaluating the plaintiff's case
during the initial client meeting and
when building the case over the
course of the litigation, the plaintiff's pre-accident health and
employment history are critical tools in proving that the plaintiff's symptoms were caused or contributed to by the motor vehicle accident.
As can be seen from this case, due to the historic trade - off, the workers» compensation regime takes away the right to sue employers
when employees experience an accident
during the
course of employment.
Examples
of such cases are Chandler v Cape Plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB)(liability
of non-employer for exposure to asbestos), Kynixa Ltd v Hynes and others [2008] EWHC 1495 (QB)(claims arising from alleged breaches
of restrictive covenants in
employment contracts), Romantiek BVBA v Simms [2008] EWHC 3099 (QB) a claim alleging that a public official had committed the tort
of misfeasance in public office
when discharging a licensing function, OOO and others v The Commissioner
of Police for the Metropolis [20011] EWHC 1246 (QB)(claims by young foreign females that they had been trafficked into the UK by foreign nationals for the purpose
of slavery and that officers
of the Metropolitan Police Force breached their human rights in failing to investigate their complaints adequately or at all) and Mouncher and others v The Chief Constable
of South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB)(claims by retired and serving police officers for false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution against South Wales Police arising from an investigation by officers
of that force into alleged criminal conduct on the part
of the claimants
during the
course of an investigation into a notorious murder in South Wales.