|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Personal injury claims - real case studies - pedestrian accidents
back
Personal injury case studies
This section discusses a compensation claim arising from a collision between a pedal cyclist and a negligent car driver.
Pedestrian accident compensation claim
The claimant was a pedestrian walking along a wide main road in broad daylight. There were no crossing facilities nearby but the claimant needed to cross the road to visit a shop.
There was a slight bend to the claimants left but he had a good view of the road and saw that there was no traffic on either side and it was safe to cross over to the other side. He made his way towards the centre of the road when he heard a car behind him with the engine revving noisily. A car had come around the slight bend at a fast speed, the speed had forced the driver almost onto the opposite side of the road and he was veering straight for the claimant. There was an impact and the pedestrian was thrown onto the car bonnet before being thrown to the ground.
The police attended and an ambulance was called to attend to the injuries suffered by the claimant. The police questioned the car driver and witnesses who actually saw the incident.
The claimant had suffered a broken Tibia on his right leg. He also sustained a minor head injury and general cuts and bruises. He was taken to the local Hospital and remained an inpatient for two days.
On his release he learned from the police that the driver would probably not be prosecuted because there was a lack of corroborative witness evidence. They did not comment on who they felt was to blame - they rarely do in circumstances where no police action is being taken.
The claimant decided to make enquiries about a possible compensation claim and he found The Claims Connection website on the internet. He telephoned our free helpline and discussed his case with our specialists. We felt that he had a strong case and so we instructed our road accident lawyers to handle the claim.
Within two weeks the first in a line of letters had been sent to the responsible driver telling him we intended to claim. We made contact with the insurers the driver and asked them to confirm their position on liability. This was denied initially but after they had read the official police investigation report, they admitted two thirds of liability.
It was argued that the claimant should accept one third contributory negligence because he had crossed right in front of oncoming traffic. Witness evidence suggested otherwise and whilst there was insufficient evidence to convict the driver in a criminal court - there was more than enough to suggest civil negligence. After a short argument the insurers agreed to pay the claim in full.
The focus then switched to the personal injury claim and the claimants medical progress. The fracture had healed well without physiotherapy and he was returning to full fitness. After 7 months the claimant was progressing so well that we arranged to have him examined by an orthopaedic doctor - the doctor reported back to both the solicitor and the insurers on the claimants condition and his likely recovery period. The cost of this evidence was paid in full by the insurers.
The doctor agreed that the claimants recovery was well on course and that after 18 months he should have no ill effects or residual weakness. His claim for pain and suffering was agreed at £5000 which included minor psychological elements and soft tissue injuries. He also received £2500 loss of earnings along with £500 for miscellaneous items such as care and services necessary after his release from hospital.
His costs were also paid in full.
Summary - This case illustrates a number of important points. Whilst the claim settled in a straight forward manner, there was initially a fight on liability. The argument was won as a result of the solicitors experience and application in promoting the supportive evidence available to us. In addition the claimant had acted reasonably in crossing the road and there were no pedestrian crossing facilities available to him.
Pedestrian cases are seldom straightforward and legal representation is always recommended to ensure that you gain the best possible settlement.
The case also dispels the myth that if a car driver is not prosecuted then he cannot be held liable for an incident. The truth of the matter is that in a civil court, the burden of proof is less than in a criminal court so the actions of both parties are examined thoroughly in order to determine who was negligent.
The claimant was able to claim in the knowledge that win or lose the claim would not cost him a penny under our England & Wales "No win No fee" scheme.