To download a Word file of this content, click here
Personal Injury Titles ~ August 2021
- Boy Who Shows Best of Human Nature Receives Millions in Damages
- Catastrophically Injured Boxer Comes to Terms with Sport’s Regulatory Body
- Distinguished Academic Injured in Road Crash Awarded £375,000
- Feel Let Down by Your Personal Injury Advisers? Take Action Today
- High Court Apportions Liability for Worker’s Construction Site Fall
- Man Injured in Amusement Park Accident Pays Heavy Price for Exaggeration
- Meningitis Victim’s Future Secured After Successful Negotiation
- ‘Novel and Inventive’ Settlement of Road Accident Claim
Boy Who Shows Best of Human Nature Receives Millions in Damages
When a child suffers disabling injuries, it is desperately sad for all concerned – but such tragedies can also bring out the best in human nature. In a case on point, a talented nine-year-old boy received millions of pounds in compensation from the NHS to assist him in making the most of his potential.
The boy developed jaundice in his first few days of life and sustained brain damage due to a negligent delay in treating him with phototherapy. He suffers from four-limb cerebral palsy, hearing impairment and involuntary movements. His intellect was, however, mercifully spared and, with the support of his devoted parents, he has coped admirably with all challenges thrown at him. He has a remarkably cheeky smile and is a high academic achiever at his mainstream school.
After a clinical negligence claim was launched on his behalf, the NHS trust that ran the hospital where he was born swiftly admitted liability in full. A negotiated settlement was reached whereby he received a lump sum of £5,175,000. He will in addition receive index-linked, tax-free annual payments to cover the costs of his care and case management for the rest of his life.
The trust’s barrister praised the flexible approach shown by the boy’s parents and legal team in achieving a settlement. He said that the trust was extremely sorry for the failings in care that led to the boy’s injuries and had worked hard to learn lessons from the dreadful events. All who met the boy were impressed by his talent, delightful personality and ‘can do’ attitude.
The High Court had no hesitation in approving a settlement that would give the boy’s family the peace of mind that he would be properly supported for life. His parents, who were no doubt proud of him, would receive £73,595 of the damages total in modest recognition of the gratuitous care they have given him.
Says <<CONTACT DETAILS>>, “Nothing can adequately compensate for mistakes that cause permanent damage to health. However, a financial settlement can help victims of medical negligence and their families adjust to the changes in circumstances knowing that essential care needs can be met and paid for.”
Catastrophically Injured Boxer Comes to Terms with Sport’s Regulatory Body
Boxing is a sport in a category all of its own in that participants are not just permitted but expected to deliberately inflict injury on one another. That point was made in a personal injury case concerning an overseas boxer who collapsed in a coma following a championship bout in the UK.
The boxer, in his 30s, lost the fight on points before suffering a massive and acute subdural haematoma in his dressing room. He had to some extent recovered in the years since the incident, to the point where he could walk on a treadmill, but life as he knew it was effectively over. He launched a compensation claim against the body that regulates boxing in this country, the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd (BBBC).
He had previously taken part in a number of bouts in his homeland under the aegis of an overseas boxing regulatory body. He alleged that, prior to the fight in England, he was exhibiting signs of a chronic subdural haematoma, including personality change and headaches.
It was argued that, in ruling him fit to fight in this country, the BBBC had accepted at face value a certificate of health provided by the overseas body. He asserted that the deliberate infliction of injury places boxing in an entirely anomalous category and that, in those circumstances, regulators are required to take proactive steps to mitigate risks to participants.
The BBBC acknowledged that the incident was a tragedy for the boxer and his family and wished them well for the future. It was a matter of regret that this should be the outcome of any boxing match. In denying liability for his injuries, however, it argued that, before the fight, the boxer had denied having any symptomology.
Whilst accepting that it owed him a duty of care, it denied that that duty extended to a requirement to itself take images of a foreign boxer’s brain before permitting him to fight in the UK. It considered that its rules provided appropriate protection to boxers and that it had taken reasonable care for the boxer’s safety. It asserted that it was entitled to rely on a certificate provided by the overseas body, which applied similar rules to its own.
Following a hearing, the High Court approved an order that brought the proceedings to an end. The Court ruled that all that may be reported about the order is that the proceedings were stayed on terms agreed between the parties.
For advice and guidance on personal injury compensation claims, please contact <<CONTACT DETAILS>>.
Distinguished Academic Injured in Road Crash Awarded £375,000
Chance does not discriminate and many fruitful lives are wrecked by road accidents. That was certainly so in a case where the autumn years of a distinguished academic were blighted by a brain injury suffered in a collision.
A long-time magistrate, the man, in his 80s, had lived an impressive life, contributing to the academic world and society as a whole. He was passionate about football and the arts and continued to lead a full and active life with his wife of over 40 years until they were both gravely injured in the accident.
Following a visit to their granddaughter, he was driving on a motorway when a heavy lorry approached to within 17 metres of the rear of his car. Unable to move into the fast lane, he braked hard and the lorry collided with the back of his vehicle at speed. He suffered a moderate to severe brain injury and his wife was rendered paraplegic.
His capacity to manage his own affairs fluctuates. He is sometimes able to make decisions for himself, but at other times has to rely on his son’s exercise of a power of attorney. Although not formally a protected party, he is highly vulnerable and at risk of falling prey to disreputable approaches for money. Looked after by a team of carers, 24 hours a day, the couple live on the ground floor of their longstanding family home.
The man’s case was replete with legal difficulties: the intermingling of his and his wife’s care regimes made it hard to put a value on his individual claim; there were contentious issues concerning accommodation costs; and the lorry driver’s insurers contended that the man’s disabilities were largely, if not entirely, a result of pre-existing health problems.
Following negotiations, however, the insurers accepted 75 per cent liability for the accident and agreed to pay him a lump sum of £375,000. The High Court was content to approve the settlement. Both sides expressed confidence that the wife’s damages claim in respect of the accident would also be settled in due course.
For expert legal support if you or a loved one are involved in a road traffic accident and you need to pursue compensation, contact us.
Feel Let Down by Your Personal Injury Advisers? Take Action Today
If you feel that you have been let down by your professional advisers, you need to move fast and launch proceedings as quickly as possible. The potentially grave consequences of delay were illustrated by the case of a road accident victim who claimed that his personal injury claim was seriously under-settled as a result of flawed legal advice.
After the man suffered serious injuries in the accident, he instructed a barrister and solicitors to represent him. On legal advice, he accepted £150,000 in full and final settlement of his claim. His condition worsened thereafter and, about eight years after the settlement was reached, his right leg was, on medical advice, amputated below the knee.
He launched proceedings against his former lawyers on the basis that he had agreed to the settlement in reliance on their negligent advice. He asserted, in particular, that there was a failure to inform him of the possibility of claiming provisional damages. Had that option been left open to him, he could have sought further compensation in the event that his condition deteriorated.
In defending the claim, the lawyers argued, amongst other things, that he had left it too late to sue them in that he had lodged his claim outside the six-year limitation period that applies to professional negligence claims. They alleged that time began to run either on the day of the settlement meeting or from the moment when he became aware that his condition had seriously worsened.
Ruling on the limitation issue at a preliminary hearing, the High Court noted that at the meeting, the lawyers had repeatedly advised the man that there was a risk of under-settlement if an operation to remove metalwork from his leg and foot revealed more serious problems. As his condition deteriorated, he would have become aware that that risk was eventuating.
The Court nevertheless found that his claim was lodged within the limitation period. The damage he was alleged to have suffered consisted of being left with a full and final settlement that made no provision for the possibility of a future serious deterioration in his condition. Only long after the settlement did he have reason to suspect that that damage might be attributable to flawed legal advice. The Court’s ruling opened the way for the man’s claim to proceed to trial.
Negotiating a suitable settlement requires awareness of many factors. Our experienced team takes all relevant issues into account in helping our clients achieve the best possible compensation awards. If you feel you have been let down by previous personal injury advisers, contact us for guidance.
High Court Apportions Liability for Worker’s Construction Site Fall
Construction workers often do not have formal employment contracts and, in a world where contractors and subcontractors proliferate, it can be hard to tell where legal responsibility lies in the event of an accident. That was certainly so in a High Court case concerning a labourer who suffered catastrophic injuries in a workplace fall.
The worker was engaged in building a mezzanine office at factory premises when he fell onto concrete, fracturing his skull. He suffered a severe brain injury, rendering him incapable of managing his own affairs. Proceedings were launched on his behalf against the main contractor involved in the works, a subcontractor and the factory’s occupier. The question of which, if any, of them bore responsibility for the accident was considered as a preliminary issue.
Ruling on the matter, the Court noted that the Health and Safety Executive conducted an investigation following the accident. The contractor was subsequently convicted of an offence contrary to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The subcontractor pleaded guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. Both, however, denied that the accident arose from their negligence.
Although the unskilled worker had no employment contract and took responsibility for paying Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions on his earnings, the Court found that he was not a self-employed contractor. The subcontractor, for whom he had worked for over two years, exercised complete control over how he went about his job and was, in reality, his employer.
The contractor bore overall responsibility for ensuring that the works were carried out safely and thus also owed the worker a duty of care. Both the contractor and the subcontractor were party to a decision to move timber boards to an unguarded part of the mezzanine, thereby inevitably creating an unsafe working environment and exposing the worker to a clear risk of serious injury.
In exonerating the factory’s occupier, the Court found that it was entitled to assume that the contractor and subcontractor were skilled enough to guard against obvious risks. The Court ruled the contractor and subcontractor each 50 per cent liable for the accident. If not agreed, the amount of the worker’s compensation – which was likely to run well into seven figures – would be assessed at a further hearing.
If you have been injured at work because of your employer’s failure to ensure that jobs are carried out in accordance with health and safety law, you could be entitled to compensation. Contact us to discuss your claim.
Man Injured in Amusement Park Accident Pays Heavy Price for Exaggeration
The vast majority of personal injury claims are entirely genuine, but there are sadly a few dishonest people who exaggerate their symptoms with a view to boosting the amount of their compensation. That was certainly so in the case of a man who claimed seven-figure damages after being injured at an amusement park.
The man and his family were on board a cable car which rocked and swung violently after being dispatched too fast. Standing in an awkward position, he suffered a lower back injury whilst trying to protect his wife and son. He launched proceedings against the company that ran the amusement park, claiming over £1.5 million in damages. The company admitted liability in full for the accident, which it accepted was caused by operator error, but hotly disputed the value of his claim.
Following a hearing, a judge found that the man had exaggerated his physical and psychiatric injuries. He took into account, amongst other things, covertly shot DVD footage of the man going about his daily life and evidence that he had taken a full part in a white water rafting trip. Claims that the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and significant disabilities that rendered him incapable of work were rejected.
Valuing his claim at £17,600, the judge found that he had sustained a lower back injury, resulting in moderate pain for three months and mild pain thereafter. As a result of the frightening accident, he suffered a mixed anxiety and depression disorder of a mild but continuing nature.
His claim was, however, dismissed in its entirety after the judge found that he had pursued his case in a fundamentally dishonest manner. He was ordered to repay £11,000 that he had already received by way of interim damages and to pay the company’s six-figure legal costs on the punitive indemnity basis.
Dismissing his appeal against that outcome, the High Court could find no fault in the judge’s factual conclusions on the evidence. There was ample evidence that his injuries were not life changing, that the mild pain he continued to suffer did not prevent him from working or enjoying outdoor activities and that he exhibited fundamental dishonesty in relation to the claim.
Says <<CONTACT DETAILS>>, “While sadly there will always be people who exaggerate their injuries, this should not deter anyone who is genuinely injured from seeking the compensation they deserve. If you have been injured in an accident, we can advise you.”
Meningitis Victim’s Future Secured After Successful Negotiation
Medical negligence can be very hard to prove, but that does not deter expert lawyers from fighting their clients’ corners to a successful conclusion. In one case, a 15-year-old girl who was struck down by meningitis when she was a baby was guaranteed very substantial compensation from the NHS.
The girl was just 15 months old when her mother took her to a hospital accident and emergency department. She was lethargic and had vomited repeatedly. She was reviewed by a doctor three times over a period of three and a half hours, and was given liquids to see if she was able to keep them down. She was eventually discharged with a diagnosis of viral gastroenteritis.
She was in fact suffering from meningococcal meningitis. She was readmitted to the hospital the following day, but suffered serious brain damage and hearing loss. She has no sense of danger, cannot be left alone and will always need one-to-one care, day and night. She is estimated to function intellectually at the level of a six- or seven-year-old.
Proceedings were launched on the girl’s behalf, arguing that the doctor concerned had been negligent and that, had she been admitted on her earlier visit to A&E and given appropriate treatment, she would have made a good recovery. However, the NHS trust that ran the hospital denied liability for her injuries.
The trust asserted that the doctor had acted competently and reasonably throughout. The early symptoms of meningitis are notoriously hard to distinguish from those of common, much less serious viruses and the girl had been carefully examined and reviewed. The trust also argued that earlier diagnosis and treatment of her condition would have made little or no difference to the outcome.
Following negotiations, however, the trust agreed to pay 50 per cent of the full value of her damages claim without making any admission of liability. Approving the compromise, the High Court noted that it was a finely balanced case, replete with litigation risks. The settlement of liability issues represented a good and sensible outcome for the teenager and ensured that she will receive very substantial compensation in due course.
Says <<CONTACT DETAILS>>, “Nothing can adequately compensate for the loss of one’s health and normal way of life. However, a financial settlement can help the victim of medical negligence and their family to adjust to the changes in circumstances and relieve them from financial hardship.”
‘Novel and Inventive’ Settlement of Road Accident Claim
When negotiating settlements of personal injury claims, lawyers aim to meet all their clients’ future care costs, however long they may live. In the case of a young man who was catastrophically injured in a road accident as a teenager, the High Court paid tribute to the novel and inventive means by which that objective was achieved.
The man was 15 when a car hit him as he crossed the road, throwing him more than 20 metres. He had been out with friends and was in a hurry to get home after his parents set him a 10:30pm curfew. The brain injury he suffered left him profoundly disabled and in need of 24-hour care and support.
Following a trial, the motorist who hit him was ruled 70 per cent responsible for the accident. That created a difficulty in that he was only entitled to recover 70 per cent of the full value of his claim. That in turn raised the prospect that his compensation would be insufficient to meet all of his 24-hour care needs. A further problem arose from a dispute in respect of his life expectancy.
Following negotiations, the motorist’s insurers agreed to settle the man’s claim for a lump sum of £4.5 million, together with index-linked annual payments of £430,000 that would continue for the rest of his life. The annual payments represented 100 per cent, rather than 70 per cent, of the projected costs of his care.
That outcome was achieved by entering into a reverse indemnity with the insurers whereby they would receive credit for any state benefits the man received. In approving the settlement, the Court praised both sides for reaching an inventive and apparently unprecedented compromise that would come as a wonderful comfort to the man and his family.
Insurers will always do what they can to minimise their costs, which makes the need for strong and experienced legal representation crucial. If you have been injured as a result of an accident on the road, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact <<CONTACT DETAILS>> to discuss your claim.
To download a Word file of this content, click here
These articles are provided for general interest and information only. They do not constitute legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the content accurately reflects the law in England as at the date of its transmission, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage arising from any act or omission resulting from any information contained herein.