You can't photograph here!

Martin, a freelance press photographer, was sent by the local paper to the scene of a fatal cycle accident.  The emergency services were already present at the scene, which was cordoned off by the police.  

Police take exception to presence of photo-journalist

From outside the cordon, Martin began to take photos.  Some police present took great exception to this, he was assaulted by being rugby tackled,  held in a headlock and pulled around, his camera was seized and he was threatened that his vehicle would be seized also.  He was also roundly abused and called a “sick pervert”. His protests that he was an accredited photographer, only doing his job and not photographing the deceased, went unheeded.

Martin was badly shaken up, the assault aggravated longstanding back problems but more importantly, he suffered an adverse psychiatric reaction which left him with a low mood. He felt generally lethargic  and had problems concentrating. His sleep was disturbed.  He lost interest in seeing friends or socialising. He was prescribed anti-depressants It was recommended that he undergo a course of cognitive behaviour therapy to overcome these problems. 

The Metropolitan Police had accepted at a relatively early stage that what their officers had done was unjustified and confirmed that they would not contest liability.  But they did contest the claim for damages we put forward, and they attributed most of Martin’s problems to underlying difficulties in his history.  There was some evidence in Martin’s medical records of these difficulties. 

Fortunately, a settlement was reached shortly after the issue of proceedings, with Martin recovering almost £13,000 for the pain, suffering and psychiatric disturbance which had been caused by the assault.  The Metropolitan Police also agreed to pay Martin’s costs in full. 

In English law,  defendants cannot escape liability for their wrongful acts by saying  that their victim  already had –eg -  a bad back. The legal rule is that the defendant takes his victim as he finds him. So it’s bad luck on the defendant if his victim happens to be more vulnerable to injury. In fact this is known as the “thin skull” rule.

But often the real battleground  is the cause of the claimant’s condition, ie to what extent is the claimant’s pain and suffering attributable to the incident as distinct from pre-existing problems, which had or would shortly have appeared, even without the incident? Many cases resolve because both parties recognise that there are risks in proceeding to trial where the outcome cannot be predicted. In fact most accident cases are resolved far short of the trial itself. The skill lies in securing a good outcome for the client as quickly as possible.

Bus Accident- £10,250 recovered for 86 year old

Carina was an independent, healthy 86 year old who enjoyed her shopping trips up and down the Holloway Road (as well as foreign travel to Cyprus, the land of her birth).  She boarded a “bendy” bus when the bus lurched forward as it left the stop, throwing her to the floor. 

Unfortunately, as it is often the case with elderly people whose bones are more brittle, Carina’s accident led to a bad fracture of her leg, near her hip.  This required to be pinned with an internal nail when the operation to reduce her fracture was undertaken.  As a result of it, despite as good a recovery as might be expected for someone of such advanced years, Carina will remain reliant on one crutch for the rest of her life and will continue to require some help for dressing, bathing, housework, shopping and laundry.  Her age is such that the metalwork will have to remain in her leg. 

The bus company released the CCTV images of the accident, for which they denied any liability, contesting the claim that the bus driver had moved the bus off jerkily or that he had failed to ensure his passengers were safely positioned before doing so.   (One of the problems of the bendy bus is that the driver’s view of his passengers can be badly restricted, by the very length of the bus). 

There was really not much on the CCTV images to indicate fault of the driver, but by dint of perseverance, we persuaded the bus company to accept 50% liability for Carina’s injuries.  She had thought that she would end up with nothing and so was very pleased to be presented with a cheque for £10,250.  The bus company paid all her legal fees. 

It is noteworthy that if a defendant accepts part liability for an accident, it does not follow that they will only pay part of the costs!  Fixing a defendant with any part of the liability will normally result in full costs recovery of a skilfully run claim, as it did here. 

An overtaking lorry on Hackney Road "brushes by" cyclist: £11,000 recovered

Jane was cycling on Hackney Road in September 2010 when a  truck overtaking  knocked her off her bike pulling her along the ground.

Jane  suffered physical and neurological injuries and psychological difficulties after the accident. At the time, she was studying accountancy and was unable to continue her studies.  

We obtained  CCTV** evidence from Tower Hamlets council showing that the truck driver did not leave adequate space between the truck and Jane’s bicycle. We argued that the CCTV proved that the truck driver was at fault by getting dangerously close to our client’s bike. The Defendant’s insurers refused to admit liability and suggested Jane had lost control of her bike ( “had wobbled”). 

We prepared court papers and issued the claim with the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. We  obtained reports from a surgeon,  neurologist and psychiatrist outlining Jane’s  injuries.

We received an offer from the Defendant of £7,000.  That however did not account fully for Jane’s injuries and care needs and we put forward a counter offer of £11,000 which was accepted.  Compensation included a substantial claim for costs of public transport which Jane had previously avoided as a keen cyclist.

Jane was delighted with the settlement as it allowed her to begin to rebuild her life and put a terrible experience behind her.    However,  more than a year after the accident Jane had still not returned to cycling because of  heightened anxiety.

[*NB: Most local authorities retain CCTV evidence for 30 days only therefore it is very important to apply for a recording as soon as possible. The police may also request such evidence if there is a liklihood of a prosecution]

Pre-exisitng knee complaint complicates compensation

Ian’s car was struck by another vehicle which pulled out from the mouth of an estate into his path.  Ian’s knee was jammed under the steering column.  Unfortunately, he had serious pre-existing problems with his knee and surgery had been contemplated which he had put off in the hope that these would pass. 

There was no question but that the other driver was to blame for Ian’s accident and his injuries but the extent of those injuries proved difficult to establish because of his pre-accident condition.  The medical report we obtained estimated that Ian suffered pain of between two and three months which was attributable to the accident.  Any continuing pain would have occurred anyway because of longstanding problems.  We estimated the value of Ian’s claim for pain and suffering at about £1,500 to £1,800 if the case had gone to Court, but we negotiated a settlement of £5,000 for Ian’s knee injury with the other driver’s insurers.  All Ian’s costs were paid by them also.