Substantial settlement in spinal cord injury claim involving an overtaking motorcyclist where liability and apportionment remained fully in issue

15/01/2026

Lionel Stride and James Arney KC (instructed by Philip Andrews of Scooters & Bikes Legal) represented a claimant who suffered a severe spinal cord injury following an accident between his motorbike and a car when aged 18 years old. A settlement in the region of £4.25 million net of liability and gross of interim payments and recoverable benefits was achieved that reflected a likely capital valuation of the claim in excess of £10 million on a full liability basis.

The Claimant had suffered a life-changing spinal cord injury, needing extensive rehabilitation and treatment, care, equipment and adapted accommodation. His earning capacity had also been effectively extinguished at a young age due to the combined effect of the index physical injuries and pre-existing learning disability (that meant that non-physical work was unlikely to be realisable). Although quantum was disputed, the main issue between the parties centred on liability in circumstances where the Claimant was struck by a vehicle turning right after he rode onto hatchings to overtake a van turning left at a very sharp junction. The evidence supported the proposition that the Defendant had turned out very slowly and had needed to act in some way to allow the van space to move into the junction.

Background Facts

The Claimant had been riding his motorcycle along a main carriageway, moving past a van ahead of him which was turning and/or preparing to turn left into a service road, as the Defendant emerged from the junction and turned partially across the path of the Claimant’s motorcycle.  The Defendant’s car has stopped or nearly stopped by the point of impact.

As a result of the collision, the Claimant was thrown from his motorcycle, landed on his back and sustained a life-changing spinal cord injury at the T3/T4 level and associated injuries (spinal fractures of the T2, T3 and T4 vertebrae; fractures of the ribs, left fibula and left foot 1^st metatarsal; hand-digital nerve injury; neurogenic bladder; and psychiatric disorder).

A full denial of liability and allegations of contributory negligence against the Claimant were raised in the Defence. The Claimant’s case was that the Defendant was negligent in turning out from the junction when it was unsafe for him to do so because his view would have been partially obscured by the van in front of the Claimant’s motorcycle. It was contended, and pleaded in detail, that there were numerous safer options for the Defendant to consider rather than effecting a full turn.

In contrast, Defendant’s case was that traffic on the main carriageway (the van) had slowed right down waiting for the Defendant’s manoeuvre, forcing the Defendant to pull out very slowly. He contended (supported by the wider evidence) that he stopped completely as soon as he heard the motorcycle’s engine and that the Claimant then collided with his vehicle. In the alternative, the Defendant alleged that the Claimant contributed to the accident and was negligent on the basis that he performed an overtaking action when it was unsafe to do so; rode into the hatched area (a hazard area by a junction); failed to make proper observations of the upcoming junction; failed to pay proper attention to the van’s left turn indication in front of him; and failed to drive slowly enough to avoid the collision.

Essentially, the critical questions for the purposes of primary liability were: what options were available to the Defendant other than making his right-hand turn and were such alternative actions reasonable, safe and/or realistic? Insofar as the Claimant could establish primary liability, there was then a question of apportionment given the overall circumstances of the collision.  The Defendant sought a split trial and cost budgeting despite the pleaded value of the case (pleaded provisionally in the region of £18 million).

Settlement/Resolution of Key Issues

The parties agreed to an early JSM, with the Claimant preparing a detailed position statement in advance illustrating the full range of options available to the Defendant (other than embarking on his right hand turn), with review of the most relevant case law. These included better positioning at the junction, slight repositioning at the give way lines, moving forward only a short distance or reversing to give the van space, or keeping within the profile of the van when turning out to avoid conflict with an overtaking vehicle. The Defendant argued that all of the suggested actions amounted to a counsel of perfection given that the driver would have had a matter of seconds in which to make a decision; and that the maximum recovery (supported on the case law) would have been 50%, with at least an equal chance that the Claimant might lose entirely.

Despite these disputes, the parties were ultimately able to agree a settlement figure in the region of £4.25 million, which reflected the Claimant’s eight-figure valuation of the case, but also the risk that he might lose entirely or face an 80% reduction for contributory negligence. Although no formal apportionment was agreed, settlement reflected recovery of 33-40% of likely damages where the Claimant’s best realistic outcome would have been 50% and his worst outcome 0%. In return, the Claimant also agreed to forgo any potential PPO or award of provisional damages.

Lessons Learned

The case illustrates the indispensability of thorough interrogation of both the unique facts of each case, as well as relevant judicial precedent, where liability and apportionment are in issue. This ensured both that the Claimant’s case could be robustly presented at the JSM and that sensible concessions could be made to reflect the wide potential range of outcomes at trial. The case also serves as a reminder of the benefit of exchanging detailed position statements to maximise the prospects of the best possible settlement in cases where complex liability arguments need to be articulated.

On the facts, the case was interesting: –

• On the one hand, the Defendant could contend that his manoeuvre was no different to that required of thousands of drivers every day, who emerge through queuing traffic when sightlines are obstructed, at risk of conflict with filtering motorbikes.  On that basis, his slow and careful manoeuvre left him well placed to contest even primary liability.

• The Claimant sought to distinguish such scenarios, on the grounds that this Defendant had viable alternatives by which he could have avoided engaging the risk of what transpired.  Whereas those turning through queuing traffic have no choice but to emerge (waiting an hour for traffic to dissipate is not a viable real world option), this Defendant took an unnecessary risk that could have been avoided altogether by taking practical alternative steps to enable the obstructing van to make its turn, so that sightlines would be re-established.