Personal Injury Case Studies
Case Study 1:
O'Brien -v- Shorrock (1) and Motor Insurers Bureau (2)
Mr O'Brien suffered life threatening and catastrophic injuries, particularly a brain injury, in a road traffic accident in July 2002. His family had instructed a firm of solicitors shortly after the accident but decided, at the end of 2008, to instruct PotterRees to take over conduct of his matter.
The accident was unhappily a hit and run. The police investigated and although there was one main suspect, the police deemed there was insufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution which would have to show 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the suspect, Mr Shorrock, was the driver. Mr O'Brien's previous solicitors concluded also that there was insufficient evidence to bring a civil court case against Mr Shorrock, in which it would have to be shown on the 'balance of probabilities' that Mr Shorrock was the driver. Accordingly, the previous solicitors agreed with the Motor Insurers Bureau that the claim should proceed on the 'Untraced Drivers Agreement'.
When PotterRees took over conduct of the matter in late 2008, we reviewed the file in its entirety. We took the view that, even some six and a half years after the accident, all proper steps to investigate the identity of the driver needed to be taken. Unfortunately, a lot of the police evidence had not been preserved because of the passage of time. Nonetheless, we took statements from the police officers who investigated the accident and took the view that there was enough evidence still available to prove to a civil court that Mr Shorrock was indeed the driver.
The case was heard before Mr Justice King on 13th and 14th June 2011. There were numerous coincidences which pointed to Mr Shorrock being the driver, including an anonymous tip-off, a description of the driver that matched Mr Shorrock, Mr Shorrock admitting himself that he had been in the car on the day prior to the accident and the car being abandoned within half a mile of Mr Shorrock's home. Mr Justice King agreed with us that the coincidences were convincing enough, when added together, to safely conclude that Mr Shorrocks was indeed the driver. This contention was opposed throughout by the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB).
This Judgment means that we can now proceed with a claim for damages on Mr O'Brien's behalf against the MIB under the 'Uninsured Drivers Agreement' as opposed to the 'Untraced Drivers Agreement' There are numerous advantages to Mr O'Brien using the Uninsured Drivers Agreement which includes the Court taking control of the timetable of the case, being able to request interim damages payments and having a High Court Judge determine the overall level of damages. The funding process for the Uninsured Drivers Agreement also allows more flexibility and freedom for PotterRees to choose and instruct highly regarded experts to challenge the expert evidence put forward by the MIB.
The Judgment is a huge turning point in Mr O'Brien's case and will make a massive difference to the outcome of his claim.
PotterRees are now in the process of gathering more evidence and reports to support our argument that Mr O'Brien should be cared for at home, in suitable accommodation by an employed care team.
Case Study 2:
WHITE v WHITE AND MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU
In June 2003 Mr White was severley injured whilst travelling as a passenger in a vehicle being driven by his Brother when it was involved in a collision. He suffered a severe spinal cord injury. His brother was uninsured and be brought an action against him and the Motor Insurers Bureau. Mr White did not know his Brother was uninsured. The MIB refused to provide compensation on the grounds that Mr White "ought to have known" that his Brother was uninsured. We contended the MIB's position was a breach of the European Insurance Directive 84/5 EEC Art 1(4) and therefore their refusal to provide compensation was unlawful. This important issue ultimately went to the House of Lords who decided in Mr. White's favour that the definition of "ought to have known" was tantamount to actual knowledge or a reckless disregard of knowledge that should have been known. Mr. White did not have such knowledge and he was therefore appropriately compensated.
This was a landmark decision and an important test case which had wide ranging implications for other cases. As a result, many others have received compensation who would otherwise have been denied. This case was reported in White v White and MIB (2001) UKHL 9, (2001) 1 WLR 481. Keith Kushner and Rachel Rees of PotterRees acted for the claimant, Mr. White.
Case Study 3:
PotterRees received instructions in this case, shortly before the expiration of the three year limitation period. 'R' had sustained multiple injuries, to include a traumatic brain injury and serious orthopaedic injuries to his lower limbs when he was struck by a car whilst attempting to cross the road. The case was complicated by the fact that, at the time of the accident, our client was using a 'PUFFIN' crossing but he emerged from the island in the centre of the road when the traffic lights were in favour of the driver. The case remained fully defended and so we obtained an Order for the issue of liability to be tried separately. Although our client failed to wait for the green figure to show in the control box before attempting to cross the road, we were subsequently able to establish primary liability against the car driver, on the basis that she failed to take into account the presence and progress of our client in the road, failed to slow down or brake, failed to sound her horn and drove at a speed which was unsafe in all the circumstances. It subsequently proved possible, with the Court's approval, to secure Judgment on the basis of an agreement apportionment of liability on a 50/50 basis.
Thereafter, this matter proceeded in relation to determining the value of the case. This was further complicated by our elderly client having deteriorated in the lead up to the proposed Assessment of Damages Hearing. The case had to be adjourned, whilst our client's symptoms were properly investigated. It became apparent that our client was showing early signs of cerebrovascular disease but, with the benefit of specialist input from the relevant medical experts, we were able to establish that there was some significant acceleration of those symptoms, as a consequence of the original traumatic brain injury and so our client was compensated, on the basis of an estimated acceleration period in the region of 8 years, to include compensation for the original traumatic brain injury, orthopaedic injuries and his consequent care needs. Quantum was agreed in the sum of £800,000.00 prior to the reduction to reflect the agreed apportionment of liability, the terms of which were formally agreed by the High Court in May this year. Helen Shaw acted for the Claimant in this matter
Case Study 4:
In January 2007, our client was riding his motorcycle when it was involved in a collision with a vehicle that was executing a right hand turn from the major road into a minor road. Liability was very much in dispute as some of the evidence within the Police Report supported the driver's contention that he indicated his intention to turn right, prior to the impact. Matters were further complicated by allegations that our client was attempting to overtake, at a junction, and at a speed in excess of the prevailing speed limit. Both parties obtained accident reconstruction evidence which contained opinions which were, essentially, diametrically opposed. Our client suffered a minor head injury and a serious spinal cord injury (he was rendered tetraplegic). However, following joint negotiations, it proved possible to negotiate a settlement involving a substantial lump sum payment, to assist our client in relation to many of his future needs. Helen Shaw acted for the Claimant.
Case Study 5:
In April 2007 'T' (then 16 years old) was knocked from his bicycle on a residential road in Greater Manchester. 'T' suffered very severe brain injuries. He was treated in hospital for several months and still receives rehabilitation. The police believe the motorist was travelling substantially in excess of the speed limit but there was no prosecution brought. The driver said 'T' swerved in front of him as he was overtaking 'T's' bicycle and so the driver's insurance company has refused to pay 'T' any compensation. PotterRees commenced civil court proceedings in the Manchester High Court and 'T's' case is listed for trial in the Spring of 2010 where the court will decide whether the driver's insurance company must pay compensation to 'T', even though the driver was not prosecuted. If 'T' is successful, he will return to Court at a later date for his compensation to be assessed and which is likely to be very substantial. Hugh Potter is acting for the Claimant.
Case Study 6:
'O' was a passenger in a car when the driver lost control. The vehicle left the road and collided with a dry stone wall. 'O' suffered a severe traumatic head injury , which left him with profound cognitive and emotional difficulties; right sided hemipareses with atexiam; right sided loss of normal sensation; visual disturbances; some inability to understand what is said to him; impaired sense of smell and taste and bladder and some bowel incontinence. As a result he was left wheelchair bound requiring 24 hour care and is a patient within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. On 14th July 2008, Mr Justice Swift approved an agreement for over £2.1 million lump sum and £120,000 per annum for care. Hugh Potter acted for the Claimant.
Case Study 7:
"A" was a 40 year old man who was in his back garden when the trunk of a very large tree located on adjoining land snapped causing it to fall on him, pinning him to the ground. Unfortunately, he suffered a very serious spinal cord injury. His previous Solicitors advised he had no case. PotterRees were then instructed. We investigated and obtained expert opinion from an Arboriculturist. He found the tree was badly decayed and he was critical of the Local Authority (which owned the land where the tree was situated) for failing to carry out inspections of their trees. We pursued the claim and the Local Authority subsequently conceded liability. He eventually recovered over £1.5 million in compensation which enabled him to move into a suitable property and manage his rehabilitation much more effectively. Keith Kushner and Rachel Rees acted for the claimant.
Case Study 8:
"B" was a 38 year old man with a young family. His vehicle suffered a puncture and whilst retrieving the spare tyre from the boot, having parked upon the grass verge, another vehicle struck him resulting in a catastrophic spinal cord injury (tetraplegia) and head injury. PotterRees investigated and pursued a claim against the other driver whose insurers conceded liability. With the assistance of compensation he was able to relocate to a suitable property, drive a specially adapted vehicle, and employ a team of carers to help him and his family. He eventually recovered £4 million in compensation.
Case Study 9:
"C" is a bright young man who unhappily suffered very serious brain injuries in a road traffic accident. He was a back seat passenger and PotterRees was instructed to bring a claim against the driver of his vehicle. As a result of his brain injuries "C" is largely confined to a wheelchair and he has quite serious cognitive impairment. Nevertheless, he has retained his quick and mischievous sense of humour and philosophical outlook. We were successful in our claim and "C" was awarded just over £5 million. We referred "C" to independent financial advisors. After discussions he decided he wanted to spend some of his compensation monies on a substantial annual payment to pay his team of carers and index linked to inflation. PotterRees also help "C" to manage his own financial affairs through a deputy in the Court of Protection department.
Case Study 10:
"D" is a young man who unfortunately sustained a serious spinal cord injury when he fell over the balcony of his holiday apartment. He was overseas at the time and the Tour Operator alleged that he had been drinking heavily. PotterRees brought a claim on behalf of "D" on the basis that the balcony rail was too low and the Tour Operator itself was responsible. Our claim was successful. As a result of his spinal injury, "D" was rendered tetraplegic. He required care, items of equipment and adaptations to his home and his compensation claim amounted to millions of pounds.
Case Study 11:
"E" was pushed into a wall by his girlfriend. Unfortunately, he suffered grievous personal injuries. PotterRees was instructed and we applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, (CICA) for compensation. Our application was rejected. We thought that the decision was wrong and we lodged an appeal on behalf of "E". The Appeal Tribunal also rejected the claim on the grounds that there had not been an assault. We thought this decision was wrong also. We therefore brought a claim in the High Court against the CICA on the basis that it had made an unjustifiable decision. The Judge in the High Court agreed with us and ruled in "E's" favour. At the final court hearing "E" recovered compensation measured in millions of pounds for his injuries.
Return to case studies »
Read more about our Personal Injury service »
