Local man receives £247,000 after being knocked off his push bike on his way to work

Our Personal Injury Team helped a young local man, who had just left home to travel to work one January morning, recover substantial damages for a number of injuries he sustained when a van pulled out into his path on a roundabout.

Mr P’s Injuries

In January 2019, Mr P left his home early in the morning, to cycle to work. It was still dark, but his bike was fitted and had working, front and rear lights and he was wearing reflective clothing. The area where he was cycling was also well lit. Despite this, as he approached a roundabout and proceeded straight ahead, to cross the roundabout, a van approached from his left-hand side and failed to stop at the give way lines. The Defendant pulled out into his path, leaving Mr P nowhere to go. Mr P hit the back of the van at around 25 miles per hour.

Mr P sustained substantial injuries, including a broken nasal septum, two skull fractures, two chipped teeth, facial scarring, soft tissue injuries to the right thigh, neck, lower back, headaches, tinnitus to his left ear, short term memory loss, tendonitis to his left shoulder and a loss of sense of taste and smell.

The Settlement

Mr P initially instructed his union solicitors to deal with the claim but he quickly became aware that they did not fully understand the extent of his injuries and he was not confident with the way in which they were dealing with the claim. Marie Oxland was personally recommended to Mr P by a friend of his wife’s.

An early admission of liability was obtained, which the Defendant’s insurers subsequently tried to rescind, once they were aware of the true extent of the scale of Mr P’s injuries. It was made clear to the Defendant’s insurers that a full and unequivocal admission had been made and that the only way that admission could be rescinded would be upon application to the court, but that any application would be defended. The accident circumstances and injuries had been made clear in the letter of claim, sent to the Defendant’s insurers, and the admission of liability had been made with that knowledge. There had been no substantial material change in the circumstances or the injuries.

Due to the extent of Mr P’s injuries, he was unable to work and the Defendant’s insurers were asked to fund private medical treatment under the Rehabilitation Code. A rehabilitation manager was instructed who arranged all private treatment including private ENT surgery, physiotherapy and psychological therapy.

Mr P returned to work after his ENT surgery, at around 8 months post injury but continued to be hampered by intrusive symptoms in his shoulder. An early interim payment had been obtained to assist him with his lost earnings and overtime. 

Mr P was examined for the purposes of his claim by several independent medical experts, one of whom was an orthopaedic surgeon specialising in traumatic shoulder injuries and he recommended specialist physiotherapy treatment and subsequent injections into the shoulder. The Defendant’s insurers continued to fund the private treatment. Mr P eventually had to stop working again due to the continuing extent of the shoulder symptoms and his lack of ability to carry out his job properly. A further interim payment was requested and obtained to continue to assist Mr P with his absence from work.

Mr P was re-examined for the purposes of his claim and shoulder surgery was recommended. Following surgery and further physiotherapy, Mr P returned to work on a phased return.

In addition to the physical symptoms, Mr P also suffered significant psychological symptoms and was diagnosed with PTSD. He required extensive Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Eye Movement Desensitisation Reprogramming Therapy.

Following examination by an ENT Surgeon, a diagnosis of a permanent loss of smell and taste was made. Adaptations to Mr P’s house had to be made as he required wired in smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors.

Mr P required a substantial period of absence from work and his long-term employment was affected by the amount of sickness absence he had taken. He also required a substantial amount of care from family members, following the accident and following surgery. He also needed longer term help with DIY and gardening.

Whilst it took several years to bring the claim to a successful conclusion, following the commencement of court proceedings, Marie Oxland commented that it was important that clients understood that it is not about the length of time a claim takes to settle, it is ensuring that the best possible settlement has been reached and that all a client’s past losses and future needs have been considered. The main purpose is ensuring that clients are put back in the best possible position they can be following accidents that have a significant impact on not only their lives, but those of their families.