A claimant was represented by Miss Miley, Mr. Khan, and Mr. Singh for personal injuries, losses, and damages resulting from a car accident that occurred while the claimant was at work.
At all material times: (1) The Claimant was working at an Amazon fulfilment centre in Crabtree Manorway North, London, DA17 6AS; (2) The First Defendant was a delivery driver employed by the Second Defendant; and (3) The First Defendant was operating a Ford 270 Trend motor van with the licence plate HS18 SRX (“the Ford”). A Claims Notification form was delivered to the Third Defendant (Amazon and their insurer Zurich Insurance) on March 25, 2021. On the MOJ webpage, the Third defendant acknowledged culpability. The Third Defendant was informed that the quantum exceeded £25,000.00 and that the matter had been taken from the Portal due to the complexity of the injuries and damages that had occurred. The Third Defendant consented to financial support for rehabilitation and an interim payment. The Third Defendant gave their Panel Solicitors instructions as soon as they received the Joint Immediate Needs Assessment report. Their panel lawyers wrote to us to ask for permission by consent to withdraw the admission of fault while they conducted more investigations and determined that the circumstances of the accident/incident were no longer appropriate to be treated as an Employers/Occupier Liability matter.
We considered any additional disclosure of liability documents provided by the Third Defendant and served letters of claim on the First Defendant, Mr. Porubin, the Second Defendant who employed the vehicle’s driver, the Third Defendant who provided the Second Defendant with a certificate of insurance, the Fourth Defendant Enterprise Rent a Car, who was the owner of the vehicle that was rented by the Second Defendant. The car that was involved in the collision had Enterprise Rent a Car listed as its registered owner. Significant inquiries and discussions were held between the Claimant and the Five Defendants to determine who would handle the matter. Liability, contributory negligence, subrogation, costs negotiations, potential pre disclosure applications, and the drafting of letters of claims were also discussed. Three areas of law related to the Road Traffic Act of 1988 were also taken into consideration, including Employers Liability, Occupiers Liability, vicarious liability, duties of the bailee, and Motor Insurers’ obligations under Ecrair, with terms to be agreed upon by consent to prevent Sanderson and Bulloch orders.
Five defendants were the subject of protective pleadings that were submitted to the court. The Claimant kept a friendly attitude with the Defendants while being aware of the life-altering injuries described below. Terms by consent were agreed upon by the Parties prior to the service of the proceedings. Then Mr. Porubin and One Motion Logistics were designated as the First and Second Defendants. Highway Insurance did not want to be named as a single defendant because they did not want to be held liable. The First and Second Defendant Solicitors DWF received the pleadings.
The claimant was 53 years old at the time of the injury and was born on June 3rd, 1965. The claimant had a compound comminuted fracture of the right tibia and fibula because of the accident. The following day, an external fixator was used to decrease and stabilise the fracture. The claimant received intramedullary nailing of the tibial fracture on November 5, 2018. To conceal the fracture site, plastic surgeons also performed a free flap graft over the claimant’s lesion. The claimant was hospitalised up till November 26th, 2018. He used two crutches after being released, then one crutch for an additional six months. The fracture location was still uncomfortable for the claimant at Mr. Mansoor’s assessment in August 2020, and exposure to cold weather made the leg suffer. Additionally, the claimant reported knee pain when walking or climbing and descending stairs. When he walked even a short distance, his lower leg swelled. In August 2020, the claimant had a revision graft procedure performed on his right calf. The claimant’s symptoms were almost unchanged from what had been stated earlier at the time of Mr. Ragoowansi’s examination on August 31, 2021. Because of his usage of crutches, the claimant has experienced pain in his neck and shoulders.
The claimant’s right lower leg and area around the patella have several scars. The Equality Act of 2010 still considers the Claimant to be disabled. The claimant’s soft tissue injuries have left him with continuous pain and edoema. The Claimant still relies on one crutch while travelling vast distances and in new places. The claimant experiences excruciating pain and edoema whenever he climbs stairs. The claimant additionally experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (ICD F43.1) and mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (ICD F41.2) because of the accident. The claimant worked for Amazon as a Banksman and Ocado as a warehouse worker. He was unable to return to work with Ocado on a part-time, reduced hours, or phased basis because of the injuries he incurred in the accident. In December 2021, he returned to working less hours at Amazon. He continues to do so, and as a result, he is effectively disabled under the terms of the 2010 Equality Act. The claimant lives in a private, rented semi-detached home with his wife and 4 kids. Any modifications to the property are prohibited by the conditions of his lease. Due to his ongoing mobility needs, an occupational therapist was asked to visit the property and complete a report on his past, present, and future needs for the home, surrounding care, assistance, and aids and adaptations like a modified car, a mobility scooter, painter/DIY, gardening, and kitchen equipment like perching stools and cookers and worktops.
The claimant’s letter of claim was delivered on March 25, 2021. The Defendant acknowledged serving the Claimant on April 8, 2021, and on May 10, 2022, the Defendant provided a defence. The claimant got notice of the planned allocation to the multi-track on June 24, 2022. The Defendant made a Part 36 offer to the Claimant on June 13, 2022, and that offer was accepted by the Claimant on June 20, 2022, ending the legal dispute.
The PI team at Law Lane Solicitors is aware of the value of ADR and resolving differences amicably with the goal of keeping their injured client first. The PI team secured costs associated with dealing with the other defendants to be included in their costs bill and contracted out of fixed costs. As a result, their client received a high settlement in the six figures, and they received 60% of their final costs bill prior to allocation to multitrack on the usual multitrack basis. Additionally helping them out was Counsel, Mr. Harris of 2TG chambers. Due to the complexity of the difficulties, Law Lane contracted and deviated from their hourly rates set forth under the SCCO criteria as part of costs negotiations on their legal bill.
Need Help?
Here at Law Lane Solicitors, we have the experience and expertise to advise you on Personal Injury matters. If you would like to speak to one of our specialists, then please call us on 0207 870 4870 today.
Written by:
Nicola Miley
Senior Litigation Executive, PI Team Leader