10/09/2025
News, Judgments
Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
27/10/2025
PLP v CM
Lionel Stride (instructed by Tracey Benson of Slater & Gordon) represented a claimant who suffered two amputations – an early below knee amputation followed by a through knee replacement – after a motorcycle-pedestrian collision. A settlement of £3 million net of liability, interim payments and recoverable benefits was achieved, reflecting the Claimant’s significant injuries, need for adapted accommodation, relatively modest loss of earnings, future care, assistance and equipment requirements and his purchase of multi-functional prosthetics.
Background
The Claimant had been crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing with traffic lights when struck by the Defendant riding his motorcycle at excessive speed (at least 55mph in a 30mph zone), most likely on a red light, but before the pedestrian light had turned green. In criminal proceedings, the Defendant was later found guilty by a jury of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving.
As a result of the crash, the claimant suffered multiple injuries, the most severe of which being open fractures of the left tibia and fibula. Despite an early below knee amputation, his limb could not be saved, necessitating a further, higher-up, through-knee amputation around 18 months later.
Although primary liability had been conceded, contributory negligence remained an issue on the basis that the Claimant stepped out when the pedestrian lights were still against him (i.e., showing red); that he should have seen the Defendant’s speeding vehicle quickly approaching; that he was hit very shortly after stepping onto the road; and that he was intoxicated at the material time. This was largely based on some of the contemporaneous reporting that the Claimant may have started to cross the road before the pedestrian light had actually turned green.
The key quantum disputes related to the major heads of loss, including (i) the Claimant’s loss of earning capacity as a result of the accident; (ii) accommodation, namely the cost of purchasing and adapting a new home for his current and future use as a prosthetic and wheelchair user; and (iii) the claim for prosthetics. A critical issue in the accommodation claim was whether credit should be given for the Claimant’s wife’s share of the existing marital home when they upsized.
Resolution of Critical Disputes
No concessions on contributory negligence were made by the Claimant at the JSM. This was based on the causative potency and blameworthiness of the Defendant’s actions by travelling at around twice the speed limit, as well as the jury finding that he likely drove through a red traffic light, even if the lights had also still been red for pedestrians at the same time; and that his actions in crossing (at worst) slightly early had to be seen in the context of it being a complex, noisy junction in which the approaching motorcycle would not have been clearly visible to him.
The dispute as to earning capacity centred on the Claimant’s likely retirement date, residual earning capacity (especially full- vs part-time work), the application of the disabled Reduction Factors given his age and job security, and the likelihood of promotion in the absence of the accident. The Claimant had supporting evidence from his employer as to the long-term availability of work, as well as the certainty of his promotion absent injury, but this had to be set against his unclear intentions and the older age of his wife (who would reach state pension age 4 years earlier).
On accommodation, although there were arguments about the cost of change, the Claimant relied upon Riley v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 2417 as authority for the proposition that it is not a failure to mitigate for a claimant not to seek a contribution from his partner to the purchase of a new disability-adapted home. Given the increased risk of relationship breakdown and his need for suitable accommodation, he was therefore intending to ask his wife to isolate her share of the sale of the marital home rather than using it towards the purchase of a new property. This issue was material because it added at least an additional £315,000 to his claim.
The challenge to prosthetics was based on how promptly the Claimant’s current prostheses would need replacement; whether future provision should include a spare (not yet purchased); the proportionality of a ski limb; and the methodology for calculating future costs of prosthetics with a lifespan of 6-years and annual maintenance costs. In the Claimant’s favour was the fact that he had trialled all the prosthetics for which he was claiming and the fact that future costs would in fact comprise an annual maintenance element as opposed to only being incurred periodically.
Settlement
The parties were able to agree a settlement figure at a JSM that reflected a reasonable compromise on his likely retirement age (given his stated pre-accident intentions) on a disability basis, the extent of his immediate needs (less significant) and future care/holiday needs (commercial vs gratuitous split) and the number and cost of the prosthetics, but near full recovery of his accommodation claim. This reflected the difficulty for the Defendant in contending that it was unreasonable for the Claimant to act rationally to protect his position against the risk of relationship breakdown.
Lessons Learned
The case illustrates the indispensability of thorough interrogation of judicial precedent in cases where both contributory negligence and amputation injuries are in issue. This ensured that both sides could ultimately agree on those disputes (such as on apportionment, accommodation and need for a spare prosthetic) where the case law supported the Claimant’s position, as well as where compromise was necessary (such as on reduced immediate care needs and holiday costs).
This case also serves as a reminder of the benefits of a collegiate approach by both sides during the litigation, as well as at the JSM itself, despite disagreements over key issues; the insurer’s constructive approach to rehabilitation had ultimately enabled the Claimant to test, and reject, some more expensive prostheses, as well as undertake private surgery that facilitated a swifter return to work when he would otherwise have ended up living a far more disabled existence.
