Success stories

Re: Mrs X

Mrs X was involved in a serious road traffic accident on 17 February 2000 when she was a pedestrian. She was stuck by a car driven by Mr Y who had himself been struck by Mr Z's car, as Mr Z emerged from a side road. An admission of liability was obtained from Mr Z. We also acted for Mrs X's two children, who were also injured in the accident. Mrs X herself sustained a serious orthopaedic injury to her leg and suffered psychiatric trauma as a result of the accident. She required a long history of medical treatment, being seen by a number of specialists at different hospitals, until a final prognosis could be given. It was felt that she would have permanent problems with the left leg, including painful and degenerative arthritis, and would require at least two operations in the future which would include a total knee replacement. As a young mother, our client's life was devastated as a result of the accident. She required an assessment of nursing care and aids and equipment required to assist her in the future. The case was settled for £250,000.

Re: Client M

We acted for a client who was seated in the back of a friend's car which went out of control. The car rolled down an embankment landing on its roof. Our client had to be carried out of the car through the rear window and was taken to hospital by ambulance. Unfortunately she sustained a severe fracture to her spine which required internal fixation with rods and screws. Our client had to wear a back brace for a prolonged period of time and as a result of continuing pain, she underwent further surgery to remove the metal work some 18 month later. The claimant suffered considerable pain and loss of mobility which affected all aspects of her life. She will develop degenerative changes in her spine within the next 20-30 years as a result of the injuries that she sustained in the accident and will only ever be able to sedentary work and will need assistance if she has children in the future. In addition our client suffered from depression.

We secured a settlement for our client of almost £88,000.

Re: Mrs A

Recently, we acted for Mrs A, a cyclist, against two defendants. The defendants were a bus company and a motorcyclist. The cyclist was simply cycling along when the bus brushed against her; causing her to lose her balance and fall from her bike. The motorcyclist then ran over her arm, causing a severe fracture to her elbow.

Both defendants denied liability and the case went to trial. We achieved a 100% victory for the cyclist - and the blame was apportioned 70% against the bus driver and 30% against the motorcyclist for driving too close behind the cyclist.

Re: Mr B

In 1993, at the age of almost twelve and a half, Mr B cycled from land owned by a local council onto a "cycle way" into the path of a moped being ridden by Mrs W along the cycle way. Mr B suffered serious head injuries.

Mr B's mother originally instructed solicitors in 1993 but was dissatisfied with the progress of the case and transferred the matter to Bolt Burdon Kemp in August 2000. We argued that the local council knew that there was a risk of children cycling from their land on to the cycle way and they should have fenced off the land to prevent such accidents happening. Counsel initially advised that the claim would not succeed because, with the passage of time, we could not trace witnesses to previous similar accidents. However, we and Mr B's family persevered in investigating and ultimately succeeded in obtaining evidence in support of the claim, producing a settlement of liability approved by the court of 70/30 in the Defendant's favour.

At the time of the accident, Mr B was a normal school boy who, but for the accident, would probably have led a perfectly normal life, obtaining a semi-skilled or skilled manual job and enjoying normal social interaction and family life. He suffered a severe head injury in the accident, with fractures to the temporal and basal skull and a subarachnoid haemorrhage. He was unconscious for several weeks and had extensive post traumatic amnesia.

Although he made a good physical recovery he has dysexecutive syndrome and very little insight into his predicament. He is unable to plan ahead or to do more than one task at a time. Mr B developed complex partial seizures which can proceed to secondary generalisation with loss of consciousness.

We contended for a structured life package involving significant amounts of time devoted entirely to leisure pursuits with short periods of work along whatever pathways are felt appropriate by case management.

The Defendant made a payment into Court of £165,000. The Defendant increased the payment into Court to £550,000. This was rejected and by negotiation the Defendant's offer was increased to £600,000 (the equivalent of £1.8m on full liability), which was accepted and approved by the Court.

Re: Miss C

On 8 December 1995, Miss C (who was only 11 years old) ran without warning across the Lower Clapton Road in London E5 and was hit by the Defendant. There was no doubt that the Defendant was driving well within the speed limit (although, of course, that does not of itself absolve him from driving too fast in all the circumstances).

Our client herself could remember nothing of the accident. A friend gave a witness statement that was entirely at odds with the contemporaneous statement she gave to the police, and there was no doubt that a Judge would give very little weight indeed to her evidence.

The Defendant's own evidence, which would have been accepted by the court, was that he first saw Miss C as she actually came out of school. He saw her run right across the opposite carriageway to his, and then appear to hesitate. He actually noted that at all times she was looking to her right.

Bolt Burdon Kemp argued that the Defendant should bear some responsibility. Having seen Miss C running from the other side of the road, he failed to slow down to a crawl or to stop; having noted that she was looking the other way at all times, he failed to sound his horn in order to warn her of his approach.

Although Miss C suffered a head injury she made remarkable recovery from her physical injuries, and was discharged from hospital after only two weeks. Luckily, Miss C did not suffer any behavioural or intellectual changes as a result of the injury.

The Court approved a settlement of £5,000.00 taking into account the very high risk that the Claimant would recover nothing at trial and even if she succeeded in establishing liability on a 50/50 basis; she might well recover less than £5,000.

Re: Mr D

Our client was a 10 year old boy who cycled across a junction, straight through a give way sign onto the main road. He was struck by a car being driven by the first defendant who was proceeding along the main road. It was accepted that the first defendant was not exceeding the speed limit of 30 mph at the time of the accident. As a result of the collision, the Claimant sustained head injuries of the utmost severity. The second defendant in the claim was the owner of a vehicle parked on the corner of the junction, blocking the Claimant's vision of oncoming traffic and vice versa.

At Bolt Burdon Kemp, we secured a settlement on liability on a 50/50 basis, despite the fact that the Claimant had pulled straight out in front of the first defendant. It was found that the Claimant was 75% to blame, however it was just and equitable to only find the Claimant 50% to blame. The court found that the second defendant was in breach of her duty to other road users by parking on a junction as this caused a foreseeable hazard by obstructing visibility, even though not doing so was illegal. However the claim against the second defendant was dismissed as her breach of duty did not cause the accident.

This was a ground breaking decision as it established that:

Mr D case study