The claimant’s details have been changed but this is indeed a true case
Phil Mulryne acted for Mrs M, the Claimant, to pursue a claim for personal injury.
The Claimant tripped over raised tree roots on a footpath causing her to fall and sustain injuries.
The claim was submitted to the Highways Authority of the local Council who denied liability on the basis that they had in place the appropriate system of inspection and repair.
Upon review of the documentation disclosed by the Council this suggested a flaw in the implementation and execution of the system as during the pre-accident period of inspection defects were identified close to the accident location but no defect identified to where the Claimant fell. The previous inspection was close to the date of the Claimant’s accident and it was argued that the defect could not have arisen between the two dates.
A Barrister was instructed to advise on the claim and prospects of success were put at 60%.
The Claimant had sustained a metatarsal fracture to her left foot with some ongoing ankle pain. She suffered a ligament injury to her right foot.
The Claimant’s symptoms continued and the appointed medical expert indicated that potentially the Claimant would require surgery to both ankles. Subsequently her left ankle improved but she still suffered some significant pain in her right ankle with swelling and aching.
The Claimant made a decision to suffer with her symptoms rather than go through surgery.
Following the accident the Claimant was significantly restricted in terms of her mobility and therefore had to rely on family members to assist her with her housework in particular.
A friend came round and assisted the Claimant with her housework for approximately 12 months. She was unable to do ironing during this period and paid commercially for ironing to be carried out.
The Claimant was also unable to carry out her share of gardening duties which were taken over by her husband.
As the claim was disputed, court proceedings were commenced and a court hearing date allocated.
In the meantime the Defendants put forward an offer of £13,000.00 in settlement of the Claimant’s claim which was rejected and subsequently an offer of £19,000.00 was put forward which was accepted.
The Claimant’s claim for personal injury damages was valued in the region of £16,000.00 with the cost of care and assistance and ironing claimed at around £4,500.00.
A concession on the total value of the claim was made to represent the risks of the claim not succeeding.