Five million pound settlement for 66 year old driver hit by lorry on the motorway

A complex case with issues surrounding the Turkish Motor Insurers’ Bureau, a brain injury in addition
to a spinal cord injury, failure to wear a seatbelt, capacity, deputyship and a change of solicitor to
Aspire Law part way through the claim.

Damian Horan was assisted by Raquel Siganporia and Christine Dowling from Aspire Law. Aspire Law
were also assisted by Stephen Killalea KC of Devereux Chambers and leading forensic, medicolegal
and quantum expert witnesses.

Background

Our client was driving northbound in his car along the M1 near Luton and Dunstable. He was in the middle lane when a lorry indicated to move from the inside lane into the middle lane where our client was travelling. The lorry driver didn’t see our client’s car and as the lorry moved into the middle lane it collided with our client causing his car to spin and crash into the nearside barrier.

Our client sustained a traumatic head injury, multiple cervical fractures and consequent spinal cord compression resulting in a tetraplegia at a high cervical level. When the ambulance service arrived at the scene, our client was found in the back of the car behind the driver’s seat.

Our client was taken to the Royal London Hospital where he received emergency care before being transferred some weeks later to the Jacob’s Neurological Rehabilitation Centre, Watford.

Unhappy with his original solicitors, our client instructed Aspire Law to take over conduct of the claim – a very straight forward process which Aspire Law arranged with our client’s old solicitors.

Liability

The cause of the collision was relatively straight forward, with the lorry driver colliding with our client. As a result, the Turkish Motor Insurers’ Bureaux (through there solicitors in the UK), conceded primary liability early on. They did, however, reserve their position regarding contributory negligence – for failure to wear a seat belt. The TMIB argued that our client must have been unrestrained given he ended up in the rear passenger seat. They also argued that had our client been restrained he would not have suffered the injuries he did or they would have been far less serious. Our client had no memory of the accident and so was unable to assist on the seatbelt point.

Given the allegation of contributory negligence for failure to wear a seatbelt, Aspire Law instructed a leading accident reconstruction expert to report on whether a seatbelt was being worn or not. This involved receiving all the raw data and available evidence from the emergency services and witnesses to reconstruct the accident. The reconstruction expert was also instructed to report on the mechanism/forces of the collision so that we could understand whether wearing a seatbelt or not was likely to impact the nature of the injuries sustained in the collision. Aspire law would then refer any evidence for failure to wear a seatbelt to a medicolegal expert who would comment on whether the injuries would have been any different had a seatbelt been worn.

The accident reconstruction evidence obtained by Aspire Law did support the failure to wear a seatbelt. It was therefore imperative to understand whether the lack of a seatbelt was likely to make any difference to the injuries. If the injuries would have been the same or similar then it could be argued that whilst our client was unrestrained it was immaterial and so there should be no reduction in our client’s damages for contributory negligence./p>

The third-party insurer offered to share liability 75:25 in our client’s favour. This was rejected by our client.

Litigation process

There were numerous challenges in this case. Not only were allegations of contributory negligence made, but the client sustained a brain injury as well as a spinal cord injury. The brain injury affected our client’s memory and cognition and required medical evidence to understand whether our client had the mental capacity to conduct his own affairs.

The medical evidence concluded our client lacked capacity. As such, Aspire Law arranged through the family, a Litigation Friend and the appointment of a professional deputy. These persons, along with the Court of Protection, would ensure the decisions made with the client were the right ones.

The case progressed without the need for a trial. Aside the issue of contributory negligence the parties worked collaboratively with interim payments requests from Aspire Law being met by the third-party insurer.

The claim would eventually settle through negotiation without the need for a trial.

Throughout the claim, Aspire Law maintained there should be no reduction for contributory negligence, which they supported by without prejudice disclosure of their forensic and medical evidence on the seatbelt issue.

Difficulties following injury

Our client had sustained horrific injuries, which left him paralysed from the shoulders down and problems with memory and cognition due to his brain injury.

Clinical decisions at the acute stage (following injury), focused on our client’s brain injury alone. When Aspire Law were instructed our client had not received any rehabilitation for his spinal cord injury. He was also living in a care home, which he thoroughly disliked, with no rehabilitation in place.

Developments during the claim

Once Aspire Law were instructed, we arranged for private spinal cord injury rehabilitation through The Wellington Hospital in central London. Our client received 6 months of specialist residential rehabilitation at the Hospital. He also underwent surgery at the Wellington to improve his hand function. Aspire Law arranged for this to be funded by the third-party insurer.

Aspire Law also engaged the services of a case manager and a property expert. The case manager arranged the care package and equipment our client needed and the property expert located an appropriate house for our client to live in, which was found in Luton.

After Aspire Law were instructed, our client went from a care home with little to no activities to a large house with a full-time team of private carers, ongoing therapies and all the necessary equipment to include a state-of-the-art electric wheelchair and an adapted vehicle.

Valuation

Aspire Law instructed as many as a dozen quantum (value), experts in this case to review our client’s needs both in the present and the future – for the rest of our client’s life. These experts included spinal, neurology, neuropsychiatry, care, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, rehabilitation, psychology, accommodation and transport. Once the evidence was received, the associated costs of all the services and equipment requirements were collated and entered into a schedule of loss, which would set out our client’s total claimed losses. These came to many millions of pounds. A key piece of evidence would centre around our client’s life expectancy as the longer this life expectation was, there would be a relative increase in the level of damages achievable.

Negotiations

A meeting to discuss the way forward was arranged with the third-party insurer, their solicitors and leading counsel. During the meeting the third-party insurer made a without prejudice offer to settle the claim at £4.5 million. Our client’s instruction was to reject the offer as it was thought by the Aspire Law team to be too low. Sometime days after the meeting, following consultation with Stephen Killalea KC, Aspire Law counter offered at £5 million, which the third-party insurer accepted sometime later.

This was a great outcome for our client as it was a significant settlement and avoided the need for a trial on the issues. The level of damages achieved would be sufficient for our client to live independently for the rest of his life – supported by carers in a privately owned house, which was fully adapted and close to family.

Damian Horan, Legal Director says:

“This was a tragic case where our client went from being an active member of his community to living in a care home through no fault of his own. It was particularly distressing for him as it was during Covid so he was unable to receive visitors. The care home was totally unsuited to his complex injuries and needs. I am delighted his family chose to instruct us to take over his case and through our knowledge and specialist skills we were able to achieve an outcome which will provide him with security and the ability to be able to live back in his community alongside his family. Having a specialist spinal cord injury solicitor in your corner is absolutely vital and this case demonstrates why.”