Featured Image

Road Traffic Accident

22-year-old motorcyclist receives 155K after collision

Written by Caroline Morris, Director | Serious Injury Law


October 8, 2020

The Incident

On 20th October 2018, our client who wishes to remain anonymous, was involved in a road traffic collision whilst riding his motorcycle.

As the 22-year-old approached Chalk Road in Kings Lynn around 11.15pm, a Ford Fiesta travelling in the opposite direction cut across his path and caused a collision.

Within twenty minutes of impact, our client was assessed by paramedics at the scene and conveyed to Addenbrookes Hospital just before 1am.

In terms of injury, our client sustained multiple injuries which include the following:

• A serious head injury
• Left and right femoral fractures which required open reduction and internal fixation
• Displaced fracture of right distal radius and ulna which required open reduction and internal fixation

Our client was eventually discharged on 25th October 2018 to continue his recovery in the comfort of his home.


The case

Litigation Executive, Ashley Nolan took lead representation on the case after our client’s father contacted Fletchers Serious Injury a few days after the accident.

As proceedings began, it became evident that the Defendant did not have insurance at the time of the collision. The claim had to be submitted to the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB).

Most notably however, our client’s helmet had come off in the collision.

In order to prove they were not at fault for this, Ashley, along with Assistant Litigation Executives Hannah Wilson and Georgia Catherall, sought expert evidence.

If attainable, this evidence could not only prove that our client was indeed wearing the helmet correctly, but also show the most likely cause of the head injury.

While the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) raised concerns that the head injury was a result of our client not wearing the helmet correctly, a report was obtained from a vehicle safety expert confirming that our client’s helmet had been worn correct at the time of the collision, and that it was the nature of the collision which had resulted in the helmet becoming detached.


The aftermath

Our client sustained a brain contusion of the left frontal lobe. This was caused in the impact of the collision, either with the Defendants vehicle or with the road, when our client landed following the accident.

Because of this, they have no recollection of the accident and their first memory following the collision is waking up in hospital.


The outcome

After consideration of:

• The helmet itself
• Witness statements
• Police evidence
• Photographs of the scene
• And examining the scene

The independent vehicle safety expert determined that the head injury occurred as a result of the impact with the Defendants vehicle, or when the client landed.

Significantly, the expert determined that the head injury occurred whilst the helmet was on the client’s head and did not leave our client’s head until after they had landed in the road following the collision.

The evidence proved that the lack of skull fractures, or severe soft tissue injuries, indicates that the helmet must have remained on their head when the brain injury occurred.

Otherwise, the injury would have been much more severe.

The expert also concluded that the helmet was a good fit, or it would have left our client’s head sooner. Furthermore, the reason for the helmet becoming detached was most likely a design fault of the helmet itself.

There was no evidence to suggest that our client had not fitted the helmet correctly.

A Part 36 offer to settle the claim was eventually made by the MIB to settle the claim.

This was to cover:

• Emotional impact
• Damaged items
• Past expenses such as travel and equipment
• Loss of earnings
• Care and assistance
• The possibility of requiring future surgery

In conclusion to the case, Hannah Wilson said:

“Although establishing primary liability in this case was straightforward, it was apparent that resolving the issues surrounding the helmet and the head injury our client sustained would be less straightforward.
In identifying and instructing suitable specialists to report on issues we were able to obtain good settlement offers from the MIB.”

Our client is now hoping to set up their own business.

They told us:

“I would like to thank you for your time, efforts and guidance along the way, thank you very much, greatly appreciated.”