Settlement for cyclist who suffered serious injury

Our client was cycling when a licensed hire vehicle overtook her and parked ahead. As she passed the vehicle, a rear passenger opened the door into her path. She fell from her bicycle and struck her head on the road.

She suffered a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, including a large right-sided extradural haemorrhage and left-sided subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhages. She also suffered multiple fractures, left-sided vestibular dysfunction and mental health issues.

Our client was taken by ambulance to hospital, where she was intubated. She underwent emergency surgery to evacuate the extradural haemorrhage and had a right craniotomy. She then spent seven days in the Intensive Trauma Unit.

She received 18 days of specialist NHS neurorehabilitation as an inpatient, followed by physiotherapy for weakness affecting her left side. She also received occupational and care therapy to help with personal tasks. After leaving hospital, she underwent six months of outpatient therapy.

When this treatment ended, our client sought legal representation so that she could pursue further neurorehabilitation through her personal injury claim.

The vehicle insurer denied liability and refused to participate in funding our client’s rehabilitation. Court proceedings were therefore started to establish responsibility for the accident.

Once responsibility had been determined in our client’s favour, a substantial interim payment was secured from the insurer. This provided funding for private rehabilitation while the wider claim continued.

After our client completed her rehabilitation programme, independent expert reports were obtained to assess her ongoing symptoms and help establish the value of her claim. At this stage, she had been unable to return to paid work.

Liability remained a significant issue in the case. Accident reconstruction evidence helped establish primary liability against the defendant. However, allegations were also made that our client had contributed to what happened.

Our client was not wearing a cycle helmet at the time of the accident. Evidence was obtained from a cycle helmet expert and a neurosurgeon. This concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, wearing a helmet would have significantly reduced the extent of her brain injury.

It was also alleged that our client had been cycling too quickly and too close to the vehicle. CCTV footage showed that she was cycling quickly and passed close to the offside of the car when the door opened. The evidence indicated that the incident might have been avoided if she had passed further away from the vehicle.

Our experts established liability against the vehicle driver for negligently allowing the passenger to open the door into our client’s path. However, our client accepted 25% contributory negligence because she was not wearing a helmet and had cycled too close to the vehicle. Liability was therefore apportioned 75/25 in her favour.

Contributory negligence means that someone is considered partly responsible for the circumstances or consequences of an accident. In this case, it affected the proportion of compensation our client could recover.

Valuing the claim was complicated by our client’s relevant pre-existing medical history. A substantial body of independent expert evidence was obtained to understand her injuries, ongoing symptoms and needs.

The experts covered a wide range of disciplines, including neuroradiology, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, audio vestibular medicine, maxillofacial medicine, orthopaedics, care, occupational therapy and physiotherapy.

This evidence was important because, even after liability had been resolved, the extent of the injuries caused by the accident remained disputed.

The case was listed for a two-week High Court trial to decide the level of damages that should be paid. Before the trial took place, the parties attended a Joint Settlement Meeting to explore whether an agreement could be reached.

The detailed expert evidence allowed the issues surrounding our client’s injuries and the value of her claim to be fully considered as part of those negotiations.

A high six-figure settlement was agreed at the Joint Settlement Meeting, subject to court approval. The court subsequently approved the settlement and regarded it as favourable to our client.

The outcome followed several years of litigation in which both responsibility for the accident and the extent of our client’s injuries had been challenged. Through expert evidence, our lawyers established primary liability against the defendant, secured an interim payment for private rehabilitation and built the evidence needed to value the long-term impact of our client’s injuries