Success Stories
Child S
Our client who was 2 and a half years old was in a corridor outside his parents third floor flat with his older brother who was 13 years old. His brother noticed that his own shoelace was untied and so he placed our client on a window ledge while he tied his shoelace. Our client crawled along the window ledge and fell through a window with the pane of glass missing. He fell three storeys onto the grass below.
Fortunately the Claimant sustained only minor injuries including a laceration to his head and a subtle fracture to his L2 vertebra in his back. He was unable to run for approximately 4 months and complained of back ache. He was fully recovered 8 months after the accident.
The Defendants denied liability completely saying that is was the Claimant's parent's who were at fault or his 13 year old brother. They eventually admitted liability but maintained that there should be some deduction in the Claimant's damages to reflect the negligence of his parents and brother.
We at Bolt Burdon Kemp obtained compensation for the Claimant with no deductions whatsoever. The claimant received the sum of £3,200.
Miss E
Miss E who was 2 months old sustained catastrophic brain injury as a result of a violent shaking by her father who subsequently pleaded assault causing grievous bodily harm.
As a result of her injuries Miss E suffered cerebral palsy affecting all four of her limbs. She suffers from daily fits/seizures that are controlled by medication. She suffers from significant developmental delays and has extensive health and care needs. She cannot sit up or roll over. Her vision is poor. She sometime turns to noises but is not able to recognise faces, not even her mother's.
Bolt Burdon Kemp achieved the maximum award of £250,000.00 for the injuries themselves within 2 years of applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for compensation and we are continuing to argue for the maximum additional award of £250,000.00 for loss of earnings and care costs.
Miss F
On the 12 th April 1998 Miss F, then a young schoolgirl, was playing with friends at the derelict building, in London E1. They got into the building through a part opened shutter and went up a staircase to the top of the building which was a flat concrete roof. Miss F, together with another girl, went inside a shed on top of the roof. They were talking. Miss F stepped back and fell through a hole onto the floor 15' below suffering serious injury.
Even though Miss F was a trespasser, Bolt Burdon Kemp succeeded in arguing that the occupier of the derelict factory owed her a duty of care because he was aware of the danger and knew that children could get into the building (another child having been injured there previously). The court approved a settlement of liability of 70/30 in the claimant's favour (taking into account her age) and we went on to recover substantial compensation for her very serious head injuries.
Mr D
Our client was a 10 year old boy who cycled across a junction, straight through a give way sign onto the main road. He was struck by a car being driven by the first defendant who was proceeding along the main road. It was accepted that the first defendant was not exceeding the speed limit of 30 mph at the time of the accident. As a result of the collision, the Claimant sustained head injuries of the utmost severity. The second defendant in the claim was the owner of a vehicle parked on the corner of the junction, blocking the Claimant's vision of oncoming traffic and vice versa.
At Bolt Burdon Kemp, we secured a settlement on liability on a 50/50 basis, despite the fact that the Claimant had pulled straight out in front of the first defendant. It was found that the Claimant was 75% to blame, however it was just and equitable to only find the Claimant 50% to blame. The court found that the second defendant was in breach of her duty to other road users by parking on a junction as this caused a foreseeable hazard by obstructing visibility, even though not doing so was illegal. However the claim against the second defendant was dismissed as her breach of duty did not cause the accident.
This was a ground breaking decision as it established that:
- Driving within the speed limit does not exclude negligence against driver;
- There is a positive duty on road users to make allowances for other road users;
- Parking cars on the corners of junction and impeding visibility is negligent;
- In cases where the Claimant is a minor, the court will give consideration to what is just and equitable.
Full transcript of the judgement.
Mr B
In 1993, at the age of almost twelve and a half, Mr B cycled from land owned by a local council onto a "cycle way" into the path of a moped being ridden by Mrs W along the cycle way. Mr B suffered serious head injuries.
Mr B's mother originally instructed solicitors in 1993 but was dissatisfied with the progress of the case and transferred the matter to Bolt Burdon Kemp in August 2000. We argued that the local council knew that there was a risk of children cycling from their land on to the cycle way and they should have fenced off the land to prevent such accidents happening. Counsel initially advised that the claim would not succeed because, with the passage of time, we could not trace witnesses to previous similar accidents. However, we and Mr B's family persevered in investigating and ultimately succeeded in obtaining evidence in support of the claim, producing a settlement of liability approved by the court of 70/30 in the Defendant's favour.
At the time of the accident, Mr B was a normal school boy who, but for the accident, would probably have led a perfectly normal life, obtaining a semi-skilled or skilled manual job and enjoying normal social interaction and family life. He suffered a severe head injury in the accident, with fractures to the temporal and basal skull and a subarachnoid haemorrhage. He was unconscious for several weeks and had extensive post traumatic amnesia.
Although he made a good physical recovery he has dysexecutive syndrome and very little insight into his predicament. He is unable to plan ahead or to do more than one task at a time. Mr B developed complex partial seizures which can proceed to secondary generalisation with loss of consciousness.
We contended for a structured life package involving significant amounts of time devoted entirely to leisure pursuits with short periods of work along whatever pathways are felt appropriate by case management.
The Defendant made a payment into Court of £165,000. The Defendant increased the payment into Court to £550,000. This was rejected and by negotiation the Defendant's offer was increased to £600,000 (the equivalent of £1.8m on full liability), which was accepted and approved by the Court.
Miss C
On 8 December 1995, Miss C (who was only 11 years old) ran without warning across the Lower Clapton Road in London E5 and was hit by the Defendant. There was no doubt that the Defendant was driving well within the speed limit (although, of course, that does not of itself absolve him from driving too fast in all the circumstances ).
Our client herself could remember nothing of the accident. A friend gave a witness statement that was entirely at odds with the contemporaneous statement she gave to the police, and there was no doubt that a Judge would give very little weight indeed to her evidence.
The Defendant's own evidence, which would have been accepted by the court, was that he first saw Miss C as she actually came out of school. He saw her run right across the opposite carriageway to his, and then appear to hesitate. He actually noted that at all times she was looking to her right.
Bolt Burdon Kemp argued that the Defendant should bear some responsibility. Having seen Miss C running from the other side of the road, he failed to slow down to a crawl or to stop; having noted that she was looking the other way at all times, he failed to sound his horn in order to warn her of his approach.
Although Miss C suffered a head injury she made remarkable recovery from her physical injuries, and was discharged from hospital after only two weeks. Luckily, Miss C did not suffer any behavioural or intellectual changes as a result of the injury.
The Court approved a settlement of £5,000.00 taking into account the very high risk that the Claimant would recover nothing at trial and even if she succeeded in establishing liability on a 50:50 basis, she might well recover less than £5,000.
Miss M
Our client, aged 3, was taken to the Victoria Community Park in London Borough of Southwark by her mother. The cover to an aperture on a slide was missing. The child climbed through the hole on to the top of a tunnel. She slipped from the tunnel and fell to the ground and broke her elbow. She was very distressed and in a great deal of pain. Fortunately she made a good recovery. London Borough of Southwark admitted liability for the accident and the Court approved the settlement of £4,000.