Alexander Jones secures settlement in excess of £2 million for motorcyclist.

Alexander Jones secures settlement in excess of £2 million for motorcyclist who suffered traumatic above knee amputation. Alexander Jones, acting as sole counsel against leading counsel for the Defendant, has secured a settlement in excess of £2 million at a Joint Settlement Meeting on behalf of a Claimant who sustained catastrophic injuries in a road traffic collision.

Background

The Claimant, a motorcyclist in his early fifties, was involved in a head-on collision in June 2024 when the Defendant driver attempted an overtaking manoeuvre on the A165 near Scarborough. The Defendant was subsequently convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment.

The collision threw the Claimant into a roadside ditch, where he suffered a traumatic amputation of his foot and caught fire. He owes his life to the swift actions of a passing taxi driver and his passengers, who extinguished the flames and applied a tourniquet at the roadside. The Claimant suffered multiple cardiac arrests and was considered "dead on arrival" at hospital, where he was resuscitated and rushed to emergency surgery. His right leg was amputated to save his life, and he later underwent a right hip replacement. He spent over two months in hospital before discharge.

The issues

The claim presented a number of complex and hard-fought issues.

The prosthetics dispute

Future prosthetic provision was by some distance the largest head of loss, and formed the central battleground at the Joint Settlement Meeting. The Claimant's case, supported by expert prosthetic evidence, was for a lifetime, multi-limb regime: an everyday limb built around a Genium X4 microprocessor-controlled knee with an Evanto foot; a waterproof water activity limb to allow him to return to his much-loved sea swimming; and a specialist outdoor terrain limb to enable him to resume his hobby of metal detecting — together with interim socket and foot replacements, cosmetic covers and consumables throughout his life.

Almost every element of it was in dispute. The parties were far apart on whether the Claimant would tolerate a high-specification microprocessor knee throughout his life or would instead need to step down to a lighter-weight (and far cheaper) device as he aged; on the appropriate replacement and socket-renewal cycles; on whether a third, outdoor terrain limb was reasonably required at all; and on the reasonableness of the private-sector costings underpinning the claim, which the Defendant sought to undermine with prosthetist evidence served in the days before the meeting. Life expectancy was also foreshadowed as an issue for trial. Securing proper recognition of the full prosthetics regime was critical to the value of the claim, and to the Claimant's future quality of life.

Accommodation: Swift v Carpenter without a pre-accident property

The case also raised an interesting point on the application of Swift v Carpenter. Prior to the accident, the Claimant lived in privately rented accommodation, funded in the majority by housing benefit. Following the accident, he required alternative, more suitable single-storey accommodation adapted to his needs — his post-discharge local authority bungalow being unsuitable and leaving him isolated from his social support network. The proper approach to the Swift v Carpenter calculation where the Claimant had no pre-accident capital interest in property — and the extent of any credit to be given for rent that would otherwise have been paid — was a novel and significant feature of the case.

The Claimant's circumstances were further complicated by pre-existing vulnerabilities and by the profound impact of the accident on his independence, daily living and psychological wellbeing.

Outcome

Despite these complexities, and a significant gap between the parties' valuations, the claim settled at the Joint Settlement Meeting for a sum in excess of £2 million — an excellent result that will allow the Claimant to secure suitable accommodation, prosthetic provision and the care and support he needs for the future.

Alexander was instructed by Fergus Dalgarno and Megan Bland of McHale & Co Solicitors, to whom he extends his thanks for their tireless and meticulous preparation of the claim, and for the compassionate support they provided to the Claimant throughout.

Fergus Dalgarno said:

“The Claimant was an interesting character who had a very particular view of life and the people he interacted with. Alex was able to engage fully with the client from the start, and the client clearly trusted his judgment and approach. Alex’s awareness of the various issues within the case enabled him to negotiate a settlement far in excess of what was originally on the table enabling a good settlement to be achieved allowing the client to start the next chapter of his life secure in the knowledge that he had the funds he needs. Speaking to the client later, he expressed his gratitude to Alex for everything he had achieved”.

‍

Alexander said:

"I am delighted to have achieved such a good result for the Claimant. He has shown remarkable resilience in the face of life-changing injuries, and it was a privilege to act for him. This settlement will allow him to move out of unsuitable accommodation, access the prosthetics and support he needs, and — most importantly — move on with his life. My thanks go to Fergus Dalgarno and Megan Bland of McHale & Co for their outstanding work on the case."