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.
03/10/2025
| £2.5m settlement of a TBI case involving significant liability risks James Arney KC and Marcus Grant were each instructed by Navdip Gill from Geoffrey Leaver in a road traffic collision claim that was settled for £2.5 million net of liability. The Claimant was thrown from his vehicle after colliding with a car turning across his path. He sustained a very severe traumatic brain injury with complications including left-sided hemiplegia, grand mal epileptic seizures, incontinence and severe behavioural issues. His case was ably managed by Marcus Grant and Navdip Gill from the outset, with James Arney KC being brought in as leading counsel in the latter stages, culminating in settlement at JSM and subsequent court approval. Liability was fiercely contested by the Defendant. Liability The challenging material facts were as follows: – – The Claimant was riding his vehicle at in excess of 40mph along a residential street with a 20mph limit. He was wearing no protective headgear. – He passed 3 or 4 vehicles in a continuous overtaking manoeuvre, requiring him to cross into and remain in the oncoming carriageway, and pass the wrong side of a central reservation of a pedestrian crossing. – The Defendant was travelling in the same direction, at the front of the line of vehicles being overtaken by the Claimant, and was intending to turn right into a minor side road. – The Defendant indicated before turning, doing so from a central position in her lane. Her window was down, and her stereo was playing. – The Defendant’s turning car struck the Claimant’s vehicle as it attempted to overtake. The Claimant’s allegations against the Defendant were that: – – She failed to adopt a position near the central line before turning, thereby reducing sightlines between her and the Claimant, and reducing the opportunity for the Claimant to pass to her left. – She failed to hear the Claimant’s vehicle. – She failed to look in her wing mirror before commencing her turning manoeuvre, where the Claimant’s vehicle was there to be seen had she looked properly. – The Claimant openly accepted that he was also to blame, and that apportionment was appropriate. The Defendant’s case was that: – – The extent of the Claimant’s recklessness could not reasonably have been anticipated. – The Defendant’s attention was reasonably focussed elsewhere, to include the road ahead for oncoming traffic, and in particular to the vehicle waiting to turn right out of the side road. – Accordingly she could not reasonably be criticised for not looking in her wing mirror immediately before turning, during the very short window of time for which the Claimant’s vehicle could be shown to have been within her field of vision. – If the Defendant is liable at all, apportionment must reflect the Claimant’s blatant recklessness, as well as his failure to protect himself from injury through the use of protective headgear. Relevant authorities included those in which vehicles in queuing traffic turn right or conduct U-turns whilst motorbikes are attempting to overtake/filter past. Outcomes have included apportionments heavily favouring the turning vehicle, and even a failure to establish primary liability. Settlement reflected both the risk of losing on primary liability, and the inevitability of an unfavourable apportionment even if primary liability could be established. Ultimately, the fact that the Claimant’s vehicle was there to be seen in the Defendant’s wing mirror, albeit for a short period of time, would probably be enough for the Claimant to get home on primary liability. Apportionment must rightly reflect the stark imbalance as to relative blameworthiness. Quantum The realistic value of the claim based on a 100% liability was likely to have been at or in excess of £15 million, reflecting the seriousness of the Claimant’s brain injury. The Claimant was 25 years old at the time of the accident and will require double up care for life, with a shortened life expectancy. He had been forced to date to rely on state support and the efforts of close family members. The liability split means that their invaluable support is likely to continue. Approval The Court made a post-PMC anonymity order, and approved the settlement pursuant to Coles v Perfect[2013] EWHC 1955 (QB), it being the Claimant’s case that he lacked capacity. In giving approval the Master noted that this was a difficult claim, referencing the relevant chapters of Bingham’s Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases (authored by James Arney KC). |
