The claimant’s details have been changed but this is indeed a true case
Phil Mulryne acted for Mrs B the Claimant to pursue a claim for personal injuries.
The client slipped on a wet floor at building society premises. It was the Claimants case that as it had been raining heavily customers had caused the floor to become wet as they entered the premises. There was a mat fixed to the floor in the entrance corridor but there were no wet floor signs in place.
The Claimant slipped causing her knee to give way and bashed her head.
The claim was presented to the building society who denied liability.
A medical report was obtained to support the claim. The client had a previous problem with her knee and had undergone an arthroscopy a matter of a few months prior to the accident. She also underwent a further arthroscopy post-accident and had physiotherapy treatment. A scan showed a significant level of wear and tear in her knee which pre-dated the accident. The medical expert diagnosed that the claimant had suffered a sprain to the medial ligament and the accident will be responsible for around 18 months worth of symptoms after which time any ongoing issues will be related to her pre-existing condition. The claimant recovered from the bash to her head within a matter of a few weeks.
As responsibility for the accident was denied Court Proceedings were commenced and a Court date was allocated. An offer of £4,000.00 was put forward by the defendants and this was rejected as was an offer of £6,000.00 with the claim eventually settling in the sum of £6,500.00.
The claimant’s personal injury damages claim was valued between £5,000.00 to £6,000.00 and in addition a claim was put forward for the post-accident treatment costs together with a claim for care and assistance as the client required help from her husband and daughters and she had difficulty washing and dressing initially and she also required some help around the house. The claimant also paid a company to undertake household tasks for a short period following the accident.
The claimant’s claim was not without risks. It was felt that there was a need to compromise on the full valuation of the claim to represent the fact that the claim may not succeed at trial. The claim was concluded on the basis of a payment of around 75-80% of the total value of the claimant’s claim.
