Personal Injury Case 1
Accident circumstances
1. Mrs C. was knocked down by a vehicle whilst crossing a busy road in Romford Town Centre. She was knocked unconscious and seriously injured resulting in several fractures. Crucially she could remember very little of the accident circumstances and nothing of being knocked down.
2. The driver had been turning right out of a side road and alleged that Mrs C. had run into the path of his vehicle without looking.
3. Mrs C. was able to remember that she had started to walk across the road on a pedestrian crossing. When only half way across she left the crossing walking in a diagonal direction toward her bus stop.
4. Mrs C. conceded that she should have crossed the road using the pedestrian crossing and was likely to be found partly to blame for the accident.
The law and contributory negligence
5. Up until 1945 the law stated that any finding that a Claimant was partly to blame for an accident would result in no award of compensation.
6. This is no longer the case and “contributory negligence” as it is known, is now defined as the Claimants:
(i) act or omission
(ii) which has contributed materially to the injury and
(iii) which has resulted from a failure to use reasonable care for his or her own safety and
(iv) which the Claimant ought reasonably to have foreseen would cause injury.
7. How is fault apportioned between the parties?
8. The law states that:
“Where any person suffers damage as a result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, the claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the Claimant’s share in the responsibility for that damage.”
The Issues
9. The driver maintained that Mrs C’s failure to cross the road using the pedestrian crossing meant that her claim must fail completely. Furthermore, that he was not to blame for the accident in the first place and that because she could remember nothing about being knocked over her claim should be dismissed.
10. We arranged for the court to consider the issue at a liability trial. This meant that the court was asked to consider only the issue of who was to blame for the accident. In the event that the claim was unsuccessful it would proceed no further. If successful the court would assess the amount of damages at a later hearing.
11. In the event we called Mrs C. to give evidence before the court. The Judge accepted her evidence that she was not entirely to blame for the accident and that the driver had not kept a proper look out.
Compensation
12. The Judge apportioned blame for the accident at 50/50 between the parties.
Not long after the trial the sum of £18,000 was paid into court on behalf of the driver which Mrs C. accepted in settlement of 50% of her damages.
Copyright 2005 Talfourds Solicitors