£2.5 million settlement following a life-changing spinal cord injury

The claim was exceptionally complex. Liability remained disputed for several years, five additional motorists were brought into the proceedings, and the medical experts disagreed significantly about how the claimant’s condition was likely to develop as she grew older.

The case was ultimately resolved through mediation, just six weeks before a long-awaited trial on liability.

The claimant had been driving along the A40 in Oxfordshire when she encountered a vehicle straddling both lanes of the road and causing an obstruction.

She stopped and got out of her vehicle. Shortly afterwards, she returned to the driver’s door to retrieve her phone so that she could alert the emergency services. At that point, she was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant and suffered catastrophic injuries.

These included an incomplete spinal cord injury at T6, classified as AIS-D, together with multiple orthopaedic and internal injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury.

The consequences were profound. The claimant faced not only the immediate effects of her injuries, but considerable uncertainty about her future mobility, independence, care requirements and accommodation needs.

Claims were brought against both the driver of the vehicle which was obstructing the road, and the driver of the vehicle which collided with the claimant. The obstructing vehicle was uninsured and therefore a claim had to be made against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau which further complicated proceedings.

The defendant driver who collided with the claimant denied liability for three years and alleged that the claimant was contributory negligent by returning to her vehicle instead of remaining on the grass verge.

His insurers then brought five other motorists into the proceedings, alleging that their actions had contributed to the accident. Each of those motorists strongly denied the allegation.

This transformed the case into complicated multi-party litigation and significantly increased the procedural burden.

Although the defendant later admitted primary liability for striking the claimant, the claims against the other motorists continued. Ultimately the matter was listed for a trial to determine the preliminary issues of contributory negligence and the other motorists’ liability to indemnify and/or contribute to the claimant’s claim.

There was also a substantial dispute about the claimant’s medical prognosis. The defendant’s expert took a more optimistic view of her future, while the claimant’s expert considered it likely that she would become dependent on a wheelchair by the age of 70.

That disagreement affected almost every aspect of the assessment of her future losses, including the level of care she might require and the provision of suitable aids and equipment.

The defendant’s expert had also calculated a significantly reduced life expectancy on the mistaken assumption that the claimant continued to smoke. In fact, she had stopped smoking at the time of the accident.

There were, however, important areas of agreement. Both experts accepted that the claimant required single-level accommodation. They also agreed that she had a 1% risk of developing post-traumatic syringomyelia—a potentially serious condition that could significantly further impair her function and mobility and substantially increase her future care needs.

Read more about making a spinal cord injury compensation claim.

The claimant and the other parties attended mediation six weeks before the scheduled liability trial.

Mediation was particularly well suited to the unusual circumstances of this claim. The independent mediator was able to identify the central issues, challenge the parties’ positions and help them navigate the competing liability and medical arguments.

The claimant, the defendant’s representatives and the mediator attended in person, while representatives of the other motorists joined remotely. The willingness of the principal participants to meet face to face had a tangible effect and demonstrated a genuine commitment to finding a resolution.

Ian and Ellen considered that the conventional format of a joint settlement meeting would have been unlikely to achieve the same result.

The mediation concluded successfully, securing a settlement of £2.5 million for the claimant, bringing a long and difficult legal process to an end.

Most importantly, the settlement gives our client the financial security needed to plan for suitable accommodation, care, equipment and support as her needs change. After years of uncertainty, she can now begin to look to the future with greater confidence.

Discover more about road traffic accident claims.