No Win No Fee solicitors
Serious injury experts

'Anne' - Hit by a car whilst crossing the road

Settlement achieved: A five figure sum

Case handler(s) from Serious Law LLP: Hayley Martinez (Solicitor)

Key elements of our client's case

In this case, our client was a pedestrian crossing a road when she was hit by the Defendant resulting in her sustained multiple serious injuries:

  • Fractured pelvis in several places;
  • Bilateral L5 transverse process fracture (the transverse process is a wing like bone on the right and left side of each vertebra in the spine.

After receiving initial instructions from the Claimant, we conducted a site inspection of the accident scene to familiarise ourselves with the accident location. We then wrote to the Police for details of the responsible party and subsequently sent a detailed Letter of Claim to the Defendant Insurer (Defendant) inviting them to agree to an Immediate Needs Assessment to assess our client's rehabilitation needs.

We were forced to chase the Defendant for a response to our Letter of Claim and at the same time invited an interim payment. We also applied for a copy of the full Police Report to assist our liability investigations. The Defendant finally responded to our Letter of Claim confirming that they were investigating liability and would not be in a position to release an interim payment or agree to an Immediate Needs Assessment until they had sight of the Police Report to confirm their position on liability.

Where our specialist serious injury experience really added value to our client's situation

It was some 6 months post accident that the Police released their full Police Report. Upon receipt, we carefully considered the contents of the report and then wrote to potential witnesses to the accident seeking evidence to support our client's version of events. We shared the Police Report with the Defendant. We wrote to the Police to clarify whether a witness statement was taken from the named witness to the accident who confirmed that a statement had not been taken.

A couple of months later after further follow ups were made to the Defendant to fund the Immediate Needs Assessment, the Defendant confirmed that they had completed their enquiries and that liability was denied in full. In support of their denial the Defendant stated that their Insured driver was proceeding correctly when our client stepped out into the road, when it was unsafe to do so. The Defendant noted that the Police had taken no action against their Insured which they suggested was clearly indicative that they did not consider her to be at fault for the incident.

We then arranged for our client to be examined by a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon which was later received and confirmed that our client required an MRI of pelvis, lumbar spine and right thigh to check whether the fractures had healed along with any muscle damage. We arranged for this to take place in order for the expert to provide a prognosis.

We then arranged for our client to be examined by a Clinical Psychologist. At the same time we were continuing to collate the witness evidence to support our client's version of events.

The medical report of the Clinical Psychologist was received and the expert advised that our client was experiencing a comorbid generalised anxiety disorder, depression and situational anxiety. It was recommended that our client undergo 16 - 20 sessions of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Without this, it was advised that our client's psychological difficulties were unlikely to fully resolve.

The MRI scan was received and showed that our client's fractures had healed. The Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon requested a re-examination to establish the extent of our client's ongoing symptoms.

The second medical report of the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon was received and gave the opinion that our client's physical injuries were permanent and would benefit with some pain management input. It was also recommended that a referral to a Clinical Psychologist take place as the Claimant's psychological symptoms had still not resolved, despite treatment.

Due to the Defendant's continued stance in respect of liability, we were forced to issue formal legal proceedings which were acknowledged by the Defendant with confirmation that they intended to defend all of our client's claim.

Reaching settlement

The Defence was received and reiterated that liability was firmly in dispute. On the same day, the Defendant put forward a time limited offer, made without prejudice to liability, for a five figure sum.

This was not accepted by our client. To apply more pressure to our client, the Defendant's re-made the same offer, which attracted costs consequences should our client not accept their offer within a specified time.

Again, the offer was not accepted, as it was deemed too low, to fully compensate our client for her injuries and financial losses.

Following the completion of a range of court procedures, the Defendant requested that our client be examined by their own medical expert and after a court hearing to agree how the case was to proceed, the Defendant put forward an increased offer to settle our client's claim, which was almost double to that of their previous offer.

After careful consideration and following detailed advice from Hayley Martinez, our client chose to accept the Defendant's offer.

If you or someone you know would like to speak to our serious injury specialist about a pedestrian accident, please contact us today.