In 2015, Andrew was seriously injured in a road traffic collision, sustaining severe orthopaedic injuries to his right leg. Andrew was driving his vehicle along a single carriageway when the Defendant, who had been driving in the same direction ahead of our client, traversed the carriageway into the wrong lane of travel and collided with another car – a BMW – approaching from the opposite direction.
The collision between the Defendant’s car and the BMW caused the latter to be forcibly directed into the path of Andrew, who was proceeding correctly in his vehicle. Andrew had no opportunity to avoid a collision with the BMW and he suffered serious injuries as a result.
Following the collision, Andrew was taken by ambulance to a local hospital. He underwent various investigations and was diagnosed with a complex comminuted Weber-A/Pilon type ankle fracture and other lesser injuries. He also suffered a secondary adverse psychological reaction. Surgery was required to address the ankle fracture, which included an internal fixation with plates and screws.
He engaged in various forms of rehabilitation following his discharge from hospital, including physiotherapy and cognitive behavioural therapy.
As a result of his injuries, Andrew has been left with chronic pain, discomfort, reduced sensation and scarring. He has had to make significant adjustments to his employment as a result. Furthermore, there is a risk of future deterioration which would require further treatment to his leg.
The case was transferred to Hugh James from another firm pre-proceedings in March 2018. At that stage, Andrew had received a settlement offer of £113,000 gross. Liability was admitted and the case was settled pre-trial for a total of £450,000.
Sami Palmer-Latif, Serious Injury Solicitor here at Hugh James, acted for Andrew. He comments:
Andrew was diligent in his adherence to medical advice to try and achieve his maximal recovery but due to the gravity of his injuries, he has still been left with a permanent disability that significantly impacts on his level of function both in a domestic/social and employment context. His level of damages are commensurate with this.
Whilst the Defendant accepted at a fairly early stage that he was primarily at fault for the accident, he nevertheless tried to argue that Andrew had contributed to the accident and his damages should be reduced accordingly. We strongly contested the point and it was eventually conceded by the Defendant that he was wholly liable in negligence for the accident.
