Children's Injury Case Studies
Case Study 1
D was aged twelve and was crossing a road on her way home from school when she was struck by a car. She suffered a head injury and was left with scars to her face and leg. The driver's insurers at first disputed liability because a witness said that D had run out into the road. However, we argued that the driver should have seen D and had failed to keep a proper look-out and the insurers then agreed to settle the claim. D received compensation for her injuries and the settlement was approved by the court.
Case Study 2
S was aged six and was on holiday with his mother. He was riding his bicycle and stopped at the end of a path and leaned on a metal bollard. The bollard fell over onto his foot, breaking two bones in his foot. We made a claim on S's behalf against the owners of the property. The insurers at first made a low offer which was rejected but we were quickly able to negotiate a satisfactory compensation settlement. S's damages will be kept and invested by the court and paid to him when he reaches the age of eighteen.
Case Study 3
J was aged fourteen and enjoying a cruise with his grandfather when he slipped on deck and fell breaking his arm in two places. We found that the deck where J slipped had a dip in which water had collected and this caused the area to be slippery. The insurers tried to argue that the accident was partly J's fault for not taking more care on deck. However, after negotiation we were able to conclude a satisfactory settlement which will provide J with funds when he reaches the age of eighteen.
Case Study 4
'F' was a nine year old boy who suffered profound hearing loss as a result of negligent treatment which he received from a locum GP when he was just 7 months old. 'F's' mother took him to see the Defendant, a locum GP at the family's medical practice because he had a high temperature and was having difficulty breathing. The Defendant referred 'F' to hospital where he was diagnosed as having a viral infection and was discharged later that day.
On the following day, 'F's' mother noted that he was very sleepy and had also developed spots on his leg. 'F's mother took him back to see the Defendant. By this time, he also had lesions on his arms, legs and his nose. The Defendant simply assured his mother and prescribed rehydration sachets.
By the following day, 'F' had developed blood blisters on his arms, legs and buttocks. His mother took him to a different medical centre where he was referred urgently to hospital. 'F' was promptly diagnosed as having Meningococcal Meningitis. He was treated with intravenous antibiotics. Regrettably 'F' was later diagnosed as having profound sensorineural hearing loss in his left ear and very limited hearing in his right ear. He was fitted with a cochlear implant in his left ear and now wears a hearing aid in his right ear. At the age of 6, 'F' underwent Neuropsychological examinations which suggested that although he was bright intellectually, he suffers with some cognitive impairment including limited attention span and delayed speech and language which is hoped would improve with intensive speech and language therapy.
PotterRees obtained medical evidence from an expert GP which established that the Defendant was negligent in failing to carry out a full examination of 'F's nose, throat and chest when 'F' attended upon him, and that the Defendant also failed to heed the appearance of lesions and refer him urgently to hospital with a suspected diagnosis of Meningitis. PotterRees was also able to prove by way of expert evidence from a Microbiologist that but for the negligence of the Defendant, 'F' would have been referred to hospital some 28 hours earlier and would have received intravenous antibiotics which would have resulted in him having normal hearing.
When presented with the details of this evidence by PotterRees, the Defendant admitted being negligent but disputed that earlier diagnosis and administration of antibiotics would have altered the long-term outcome for 'F'.
PotterRees subsequently commenced legal proceedings against the Defendant who sought to defend the case for a prolonged period before agreeing to pay £1.1 million in damages as part of an out of Court settlement. The settlement provided compensation to 'F' for his hearing loss, the extra care he needed from his family, his likely loss of earnings in the future and for much needed speech and language therapy.
