Case Study: £50,000 Compensation for Accident at Work

Mr SUS was awarded £50,000 which included general damages and special damages.

Personal Injury Case

Mr SUS was working at an Auto Service Centre when he had an accident at work that left him with lifelong injuries. Throughout this personal injury claim, our legal experts provided the client with advice and supported him, proceeding to win a substantial sum in compensation.

Accident Circumstances

The Claimant was carrying out an MOT inspection whilst at work in the motor bay, when the tester car behind launched forward underneath the four poster ramp and resulted in Mr SUS to suffer from injuries to his leg. At the time of the accident, the car was in neutral with its engine running and no one was seated in the car.

Injuries Sustained

On the day of the accident, an ambulance was called and Mr SUS was taken to a hospital where he received treatment. The claimant had a broken leg and foot due to the accident and a cast was put on his leg until the day of his surgery since it was initially too swollen to treat.

Mr SUS was unable to work for the following four months after the accident and returned to working only part time after this period. He continued to suffer from the broken leg and foot, and had a metal plate in place for which he regularly visited doctors for.

Alongside seeing a Physiotherapist, Mr SUS also attended appointments with an Orthopaedic and Psychologist arranged by us in order to be examined for the legal report.

Gathering Evidence

We presented to the Employer that they were at fault by reason of negligence and breach of statutory duty as they:

• Breached their common law duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
• Did not manage welfare and safety of their employees or provide a healthy and safe place of work.
• Was in violation of the health and safety rule which requires all employers to undertake a risk assessment to establish the hazards in a work place and minimise the risk of harm.

Upon further investigation, we were made aware that the employee injured was in fact the co-owner of the company and so a claim against his own company would not have been possible. This is because the accident was caused as a result of a negligent act of an employee, and as the owner of the company, Mr SUS was responsible for the acts of his employees.

In accordance with this information, the claim was submitted to the company’s insurance and all collated evidence was sent to them. We received settlement proposals from the insurance which were firmly rejected. Our client instructed us to do so as the injuries he sustained impaired him for life and therefore did not consider this to be an appropriate compensation.

We obtained Counsel’s opinion and were advised on the amount of damages that would be claimed should the matter proceed to trial. As it was impertinent for us to avoid our client from having to incur legal costs associated with court proceedings, a settlement for this amount was sought outside the court.

However, as the limitation date approached, we commenced Protective Court Proceedings to protect our client’s claim as it stops the time running for a legal matter. We further advised our client on their options for the matter and he decided he would like the claim to be continued with court proceedings as he wished to receive more compensation.

Outcome

As the case continued, the insurance company proceeded to increase their settlement offers and after we collected more evidence, we made an offer to settle at a sum our client was satisfied with. Considering the extensive evidence we provided and the extent of the injuries sustained by Mr SUS, this was accepted and the case concluded.

Related Articles to Personal Injury