Six figure settlement secured for son following mother’s fatal road crash

Our client’s mother was a front-seat passenger in the defendant’s vehicle. While travelling southbound, the defendant undertook another vehicle, causing a collision. The defendant’s car was then forced across the central reservation and into oncoming traffic, where it was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle.

Our client’s mother suffered catastrophic injuries, which were fatal. The defendant later pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 28 months in prison.

Before the collision, our client and his younger sister had primarily been cared for by their mother, who was a full-time single parent. Our client had not seen his father for the previous two years.

Our client’s father became his litigation friend for the legal claim. A litigation friend is an adult who conducts legal proceedings on behalf of a child.

Our client’s sister had a different father and was represented separately. Throughout the claim, our lawyers worked with the solicitors representing his sister to avoid any potential conflict of interest and keep both children’s needs at the forefront.

Our experts brought a dependency claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. The claim covered past and future losses, including the services our client’s mother would have provided had she lived.

Working with a number of experts, we calculated the weekly hours our client’s mother had spent caring for her children. We then projected the care she would have provided in the future. This evidence helped us prepare a detailed schedule setting out the losses arising from her death.

The claim included financial dependency and the loss of services such as childcare, household chores, gardening, DIY and decorating. We also claimed a Regan v Williamson award to reflect our client’s loss of his mother’s love, attention, affection and care.

The defendant’s insurers admitted liability two years after the collision. However, significant parts of the value of the claim remained disputed.

When we served our schedule of loss, the defendants did not admit the financial dependency claim and did not provide figures for major areas of loss, including past and future loss of services. These services accounted for 87% of the total value of the claim as pleaded.

There were also disputes about the calculation of financial dependency. Our lawyers claimed 50% of the mother’s income as pooled income because she was a single parent, which the defendant’s insurers disputed. They also challenged the claims relating to child benefit and housing benefit.

After formal legal proceedings were issued in the High Court, we persuaded the insurer to attend a joint settlement meeting. Any settlement would still need the court’s approval because our client was a child.

Specialist counsel David White of 12 King’s Bench Walk represented our client at the joint settlement meeting. The meeting lasted six hours and resulted in an agreed high six-figure settlement.

Following the joint settlement meeting, our client’s claim settled for a high six-figure sum. A judge sitting in the High Court subsequently approved the settlement, as required because our client was a child.

The circumstances behind the claim were tragic, and no financial settlement could change what had happened. The claim recognised the financial and practical support our client had lost following his mother’s death.

Following the collision, our client also developed a strong relationship with his father, who became his primary caregiver.