£30,500 damages for 25 year old after rear end shunt road traffic accident

Mr K was test driving a Mercedes and was stationary in traffic, queued back from traffic lights, when the defendant, driving a Landrover, failed to stop, causing a collision.  There was minor damage to the Land Rover and moderate damage to the Mercedes.

Mr K’s Injuries

Initially, Mr K was contacted directly by the Defendant’s insurers who liaised with him regarding his injuries, which were thought to be whiplash in nature.  A few weeks after the accident, whilst at work, Mr K started to feel unwell and after a trip to Accident and Emergency he was admitted and kept as an inpatient for around 2 weeks with a serious lung condition.  It was suspected that the accident might have been in some way responsible for the lung injury.

Settlement

Mr K contacted Nash & Co’s Personal Injury Team to deal with the claim on his behalf.  Liability for the accident was never an issue but causation became an issue.

Marie Oxland, who dealt with the claim explains, in any claim for damages for personal injuries, there are a number of elements which have to be proven.  The four elements that need to be present to successfully bring a claim in negligence are 1) Duty of Care; 2) Breach of Duty; 3) Causation; 4) Loss and Damage – was the Claimant owed a duty of care?  Did the Defendant breach that duty of care by falling below the required standard?  Was the Defendant’s breach of duty the cause of the Claimant’s injury?  Was the damage suffered not too remote?

In this case, Mr K was owed a duty of care by the Defendant.  That duty was for the Defendant to take reasonable care to ensure any action he took, or any action he failed to take, did not cause injury to another road user, or damage to property. His failure to observe Mr K and to stop caused injury and damage and the duty was therefore breached.  In relation to the lung injury however, medical evidence was such that the type of collision which had occurred, and there being no broken ribs to puncture the lung at the time of the accident, could not have led to the lung injury.  It transpired that the lung injury was caused by a serious infection and not caused as a result of the accident.  Mr K could not prove medical causation in relation to the lung injury.

Mr K was, by trade, a plasterer, and he continued to be hampered by ongoing symptoms in his right shoulder which medical evidence confirmed had been directly caused by the road traffic accident.  He was prevented from undertaking any work which involved him using his arm above shoulder height.  The medical expert in the case recommended the intervention of specialist physiotherapy and a request for an interim payment was made to the Defendant’s insurers which they refused as they disputed medical causation.  They were given the opportunity to put questions to the medical expert but chose not to do so but rather, made an offer of settlement of £4500.

Nash & Co put the Defendant’s insurers concerns themselves to Mr K’s medical expert who provided detailed responses explaining why their arguments were not feasible but they maintained their position and made an increased offer of £8000.  The offers were rejected and court proceedings had to be commenced in order that a formal application could be made for the interim payment.  Following the issuing of proceedings, the insurers had to instruct solicitors and following service of the application they agreed to make the interim payment.

Physiotherapy did not alleviate Mr K’s symptoms and steroid and cortisone injections were recommended and funded by the Defendant’s solicitors.  Whilst these gave temporary relief, symptoms returned and eventually Mr K came to need surgery, the cost of which was included within the claim.

Once surgery was recommended and further medical evidence disclosed, the Defendant’s solicitors made a further offer of settlement which Mr K accepted.  The offer included the cost of private surgery.