Dependency settlement for fatal road collision

Our client instructed our lawyers following the death of her 22-year-old son. He was a pedestrian crossing a road in London when he was struck by a car and killed.

His death was a profound loss for his family. He had previously survived the London Bridge terror attack in 2017 and had given evidence at the subsequent inquest.

The circumstances surrounding the road collision were complex. It happened in the early hours while it was still dark. Our client’s son was wearing dark clothing, had not used a nearby traffic light crossing and toxicology results showed that he had consumed alcohol.

There was no criminal prosecution against the driver. However, this did not prevent the family from pursuing a civil compensation claim.

The third party insurer denied responsibility. It argued that our client’s son had walked into the road and that the driver had no opportunity to avoid the collision.

Our lawyers attended a Coroner’s Pre-Inquest Review Hearing. During this process, we became aware of CCTV footage from a passing London bus that had captured the collision.

The footage showed that, although our client’s son had not used a pedestrian crossing, he had almost completed crossing the road when the car struck him. It also showed that the driver was travelling in the outside lane while the nearside lane was empty.

It later emerged that the driver had taken cannabis mixed with prescription medication.

Following these developments, the insurer agreed to attend a Joint Settlement Meeting to explore whether the civil claim could be settled.

Our lawyers pursued a claim on behalf of the estate under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. This included the value of damaged personal possessions, injury and funeral expenses. This part of the claim was not disputed.

A significant part of the case concerned the financial and practical support our client’s son provided to his family.

Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, certain people who depended on someone who has died may be able to claim for the financial support and services they have lost. This is known as a loss of dependency claim.

Our client’s son was 22, unmarried and had no children. However, he supported his mother and younger brother. Our case was that this financial and practical support would have increased over time had he lived.

The insurer strongly disputed this. It argued that, because he was an independent 22-year-old, his family did not depend on him and that any support he provided would have quickly reduced.

Our client’s family were originally from overseas. An important part of the case was their evidence that, within their culture, younger generations would commonly provide financial support to older family members.

Our client’s son had supported his mother, who lived with him in London. Witness statements from family members provided evidence about this cultural practice and supported the case that he would have continued providing for his family had the collision not happened.

The case proceeded to a Joint Settlement Meeting. Negotiations lasted around eight hours.

A six-figure settlement was ultimately agreed. It reflected the arguments about responsibility for the collision as well as the level of financial and practical support our client’s son would have provided to his mother and younger brother.

The settlement recognised the dependency claim advanced on behalf of the family following the loss of their son and brother.

Matthew Claxson, who acted for the family, explained that a decision not to bring a criminal prosecution does not necessarily prevent a bereaved family from pursuing a civil claim:

“The absence of a criminal prosecution does not prevent a compensation claim from being brought as each case turns on its own facts. I would recommend that anyone seriously injured or bereaved as a result of a road traffic collision take early advice on their own particular circumstances.”