Project Description

The claimant’s details have been changed but this is indeed a true case

Phil Mulryne acted for Mrs A, the Claimant, to pursue a Personal Injury Claim.

The Claimant was walking with her husband and friends when she lost her footing due to a defect to the tarmac causing her to fall and suffer injuries.

The Claimant was walking along a pedestrian area in front of houses, not specifically on a footpath.

The claim was submitted to the Council who denied liability on the basis that the area did not form part of the usual highway inspection regime and that inspection and maintenance will be carried out on a reactionary basis upon receipt of complaints received.

Following the accident, repair work was undertaken to the area in question.

As no agreement could be reached, Court proceedings were issued with the claim being put forward on the basis that the Defendants were in breach of their own highway maintenance manual which stipulates that the area should have been inspected pre-accident but no inspection had taken place in the 12 month period prior to the accident.

As a result of the accident the Claimant suffered a fracture to the neck of her femur resulting in a hip replacement. She made a good recovery from the surgery with only a small risk of further surgery being anticipated. She also suffered symptoms of low mood for 12 months and some back symptoms for a similar period.

Following the commencement of proceedings an offer was made by the Defendants to settle the Claimant’s claim at £10,000. This was rejected with further proposals of £12,500 and £14,000 put forward with the latter offer being accepted in settlement of the Claimant’s claim.

It was assessed that the Claimant’s claim was worth somewhere in the region of £20,000 for personal injury damages and there was a claim for care and assistance of around £1,500 (this represented the fact that the Claimant required some assistance with her personal care and her share of domestic duties following the accident during the period of incapacity). This assistance was provided by her husband.

There was no guarantee that the Claimant’s claim would succeed and it was assessed that the prospects of the claim being successful were around 60%. In the circumstances, the Claimant decided to accept the settlement offer of £14,000 to conclude matters.