Success Stories

We have many years of experience of obtaining head injury compensation. Our specialist brain injury solicitors have the skills and knowledge and the years of experience needed to deal with these sometimes complex claims.

Mr W

Mr W suffered very serious head injuries in a road traffic accident in October 1995 when he was knocked off his bicycle by a car being driven in the opposite direction by the Defendant. The Defendant denied liability, saying that Mr W had turned right across his path, giving the Defendant no opportunity to avoid a collision.

There were no independent eye witnesses to the accident and, because of his severe head injury, Mr W had no memory of the accident at all. By carefully analysing the damage to the bicycle and the car, the skid marks and the debris on the road we established that the collision had occurred on our client's side of the road, while he was stationary waiting for the defendant to pass and that the defendant was to blame for the accident.

Mr W, unfortunately, was not wearing a helmet and the defendant argued that he was entirely responsible for his own injuries. We obtained evidence from an independent cycle helmet expert and using calculations to determine the speed of the car, established that because of the speed and position of impact a helmet would not have made a significant difference to Mr W's injuries.

The Court approved a settlement of £350,000.00.

go to the top

Miss E

Miss E sustained catastrophic brain injury, when she was two months old, as a result of a violent shaking by her father who subsequently pleaded to guilty to the offence of assault causing grievous bodily harm.

As a result of her injuries Miss E suffered cerebral palsy affecting all four of her limbs. She suffers from daily fits/seizures that are controlled by medication. She suffers from significant developmental delays and has extensive health and care needs. She cannot sit up or roll over. Her vision is poor. She sometime turns to noises but is not able to recognise faces, not even her mother's.

We achieved the maximum award of £250,000.00 for the injuries themselves within 2 years of applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for compensation. In addition we successfully persuaded the CICA to pay the costs of setting up and administering the trust fund, when normally those costs would be deducted from the award.

go to the top

Mr R

Mr R sustained serious head injuries in 1998 when, while he was at work as a forecourt attendant, a metal drinks container/pallet fell on to his head from the back of a lorry during delivery of stock to the service station. Liability was agreed in the proportion 90/10 in the Claimant's favour.

Mr R sustained a fracture of the left side of the skull, contusion of the right temple lobe of the brain and a thin subdural haematoma in the right parietotemporal region. Fortunately, Mr R made a remarkable recovery from his injuries and we were delighted to achieve a settlement for him of £150,000.00.

go to the top

Mr B

In 1993, at the age of almost twelve and a half, Mr B cycled from land owned by a local council onto a "cycle way" into the path of a moped being ridden by Mrs W along the cycle way. Mr B suffered serious head injuries.

Mr B's mother originally instructed solicitors in 1993 but was dissatisfied with the progress of the case and transferred the matter to Bolt Burdon Kemp in August 2000. We argued that the local council knew that there was a risk of children cycling from their land on to the cycle way and they should have fenced off the land to prevent such accidents happening. Counsel initially advised that the claim would not succeed because, with the passage of time, we could not trace witnesses to previous similar accidents. However, we and Mr B's family persevered in investigating and ultimately succeeded in obtaining evidence in support of the claim, producing a settlement of liability approved by the court of 70/30 in the Defendant's favour.

At the time of the accident, Mr B was a normal school boy who, but for the accident, would probably have led a perfectly normal life, obtaining a semi-skilled or skilled manual job and enjoying normal social interaction and family life. He suffered a severe head injury in the accident, with fractures to the temporal and basal skull and a subarachnoid haemorrhage. He was unconscious for several weeks and had extensive post traumatic amnesia.

Although he made a good physical recovery he has dysexecutive syndrome and very little insight into his predicament. He is unable to plan ahead or to do more than one task at a time. Mr B developed complex partial seizures which can proceed to secondary generalisation with loss of consciousness.

We contended for a structured life package involving significant amounts of time devoted entirely to leisure pursuits with short periods of work along whatever pathways are felt appropriate by case management.

The Defendant made a payment into Court of £165,000. The Defendant increased the payment into Court to £550,000. This was rejected and by negotiation the Defendant's offer was increased to £600,000 (the equivalent of £1.8m on full liability), which was accepted and approved by the Court.

go to the top

Miss C

Our client was a German student studying and working part time in England . She was knocked off her bicycle by a car travelling in the opposite direction. She was 20 years old at the time of the accident and sustained a fracture to her right leg and a severe closed head injury. She was flown home to Germany in a coma from which she recovered consciousness about 4 weeks later. She remained in Germany receiving medical treatment and then rehabilitation and re-training. She had difficulties in organising and planning, an unreliable memory and her language and speech were badly affected. Her English language skills had been affected by the head injury. She could not continue with her chosen career as an optician She rejected a payment into court on our advice and went on to recover a substantial 6 figure settlement, taking into account the German law on payment of medical expenses and rehabilitation.

go to the top

Miss K

Miss K, a young woman of 23, sustained serious head injuries in a road traffic accident in 2002. She was crossing a road in North London from West to East, on a pedestrian crossing, when she was struck by the Defendant's car travelling from North to South. She blamed the driver of the car for her injuries, stating that he had failed to give precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing. However, because of her head injuries, Miss K did not have a clear memory of the accident. The Defendant denied liability, saying that Miss K had run out from between stationary cars south of the pedestrian crossing (not on the crossing itself) without looking straight into the path of his vehicle.

Although the police did attend the scene of the accident shortly afterwards, the police accident report contained a number of errors and could not be relied on to prove what had happened. Two witnesses were mentioned in the police report but neither witness was very cooperative and they each gave conflicting accounts of what happened.

The defendant produced evidence from a third man saying that he was stationary in a queue of traffic when the woman ran out in front of his stationary car, into the path of the defendant's car. Despite advice from two barristers both of whom advised that the Claim would fail completely, we were not convinced by the Defendant's evidence, however, and because the injuries were serious, we issued proceedings in 2003.

Miss K had sustained complicated skull fracture but - fortunately - not a significant brain injury. She was considered to have had a moderate head injury with some residual effects in her slow speed of mental information processing and some problems with attention and concentration but no specific neuropsychological impairments attributable to the accident.

The Defendant made an offer to settle the claim for £50,000 which, following negotiation was increased to £56,000 plus costs.

go to the top

Miss C

Miss C was a rear seat passenger in a car driven by the First Defendant, who was uninsured. The car was travelling in the bus lane when it skidded in a pool of water. The driver lost control and there was a head on collision with a bus travelling in the opposite direction. The Motor Insurers Bureau denied liability, saying that Miss C knew or should have know that the driver was uninsured and that she should not have allowed herself to be driven as a passenger. The MIB also argued that she was not wearing a seat belt and that her injuries were caused by her own injuries.

Miss C had serious head injuries and could not give any reliable evidence herself about whether or not she knew the driver was uninsured. We obtained statements from her friends and family to show that she probably did not know he was uninsured. We also obtained evidence to show that the seat belt was not working. Following negotiations the MIB made an offer, which Miss C accepted, to pay 90% of the award.

go to the top

Master R

Master R was cycling across a junction in North London when he was struck by a car being driven by a 21 year old student. It was accepted that the car driver was not exceeding a speed of 30mph. Our client sustained extremely severe head injuries. We sued both the car driver and the owner of a vehicle that had been parked on the corner of the junction, impeding the driver's view of our client and vice versa. In a ground-breaking decision, the Judge found for our client against the car driver, subject to a reduction in damages of 50% to reflect contributory negligence. He held that our client had carried out a dangerous and illegal manoeuvre by failing to stop at Give Way lines governing the junction in question and should be found 75% to blame for the accident. But he maintained that it was just and equitable that there should only be a 50% reduction to the damages because motorists must look out for vulnerable road users, to include cyclists and children. He stressed the obligation on road users, particularly in over-parked residential roads to make allowance for the inexperience and lack of caution of children and their tendency to break rules made for their own safety. The Judge went on to find that the owner of the parked vehicle had breached her duty of care to other road users by parking on a junction as this caused a foreseeable hazard by obstructing visibility, even though doing so was not illegal. However, Judge found that this breach of duty did not cause or contribute to the accident.

go to the top

Mr B

Mr B was 16 years old and working as a motorcycle courier. As he was driving his scooter, the door of a parked van opened into his path and forced him into the opposite carriageway where he was struck by a motorcycle coming in the opposite direction. Mr B sustained catastrophic head and spinal injuries. We sued both the van driver and Mr B's employer, the latter having provided a vehicle which Mr B was too young and untrained to ride, and effectively the means for him to have a serious accident. Days before the liability trial, both Defendants jointly accepted 90% liability for the Claimant's accident.

go to the top

Mr H

Mr H a construction worker was hit on his head by a falling concrete block. He sustained a fractured skull, loss of consciousness and permanent loss of sense of smell and taste. Psychologically he suffered some cognitive deficits, reduced organisational skills, short term memory problems and mild depression. Won £285,000 compensation.

go to the top

Miss F

In1998 Miss F, then a young schoolgirl, was playing with friends at the derelict Gordon's Gin Distillery on Moreland Street , London E1. They got into the building through a part opened shutter and went up a staircase to the top of the building which was a flat concrete roof. Miss F, together with another girl, went inside a shed on top of the roof. They were talking. Miss F stepped back and fell through a hole onto the floor 15' below suffering a serious head injury.

Even though Miss F was a trespasser, Bolt Burdon Kemp succeeded in arguing that the occupier of the derelict factory owed her a duty of care because he was aware of the danger and knew that children could get into the building (another child having been injured there previously). The court approved a settlement of liability of 70/30 in the claimant's favour (taking into account her age) and we went on to recover substantial compensation for her very serious head injuries.

go to the top

Miss C

On 8 December 1995 , Miss C (who was only 11 years old) ran without warning across the Lower Clapton Road in London E5 and was hit by the Defendant. There was no doubt that the Defendant was driving well within the speed limit (although, of course, that does not of itself absolve him from driving too fast in all the circumstances ).

Our client herself could remember nothing of the accident. A friend gave a witness statement that was entirely at odds with the contemporaneous statement she gave to the police, and there was no doubt that a Judge would give very little weight indeed to her evidence.

The Defendant's own evidence, which would have been accepted by the court, was that he first saw Miss C as she actually came out of school. He saw her run right across the opposite carriageway to his, and then appear to hesitate. He actually noted that at all times she was looking to her right.

Bolt Burdon Kemp argued that the Defendant should bear some responsibility. Having seen Miss C running from the other side of the road, he failed to slow down to a crawl or to stop; having noted that she was looking the other way at all times, he failed to sound his horn in order to warn her of his approach.

Although Miss C suffered a head injury she made remarkable recovery from her physical injuries, and was discharged from hospital after only two weeks. Luckily, Miss C did not suffer any behavioural or intellectual changes as a result of the injury.

The Court approved a settlement of £5,000.00 taking into account that even if she succeeded in establishing liability on a 50:50 basis, she might well recover less than £5,000.

go to the top

Ms H

Ms H was injured when she was struck by a vehicle as she was crossing the road in Islington. She sustained a fracture of the base of the skull on the left side, with a linear fracture going through the lateral margin of the right middle ear cavity. She had an extradural haematoma with some bleeding over the surface of the brain. She subsequently suffered with deafness and developed a facial palsy on the left side within a week of the accident. She was unable to return to her career as an IT consultant. A compromise on liability was reached holding Ms H 25% to blame for her accident and the Defendant 75% to blame. We obtained £100,000.00 in compensation for her.

go to the top

Mr X

Our client was cycling when the driver of a parked car opened the door and knocked him off his bike. Our client suffered a major head injury and had to give up work. There were complex issues regarding his future earning capacity. He received £500,000 compensation.

go to the top

Mrs R

We acted for Mrs R who was a customer in a Pound Saver shop. As she was shopping a stack of boxes fell on her and hit her head. We recovered £1,500 for her

go to the top

Mr O

Our client was an American agricultural student at an English college and injured when a passenger in a car. The driver had looked down to change the cassette. Our client's family business was farming hogs. His head injury affected his future career. The Defendant's insurers refused to accept that our client was permanently affected by his injuries and were not prepared to pay what we regarded as an appropriate sum in compensation. We arranged for his parents and the family lawyer to attend court in England to give oral evidence to the judge. The latter was persuaded that our view was correct and awarded substantial damages beating the Defendant's payment into court.

go to the top

Mr H

Mr H was driving his soft top motor car down a country lane when another car which was attempting to overtake him hit him. Mr H's car turned over and slid along the road for some distance. He sustained a serious degloving injury of his scalp but, miraculously, no brain damage. He was able to return to his former employment after extensive medical treatment and we recovered £110,00.00 in damages.

go to the top

Mr S

Mr S was hit by a car as he was walking to work early one morning. He sustained a severe head injury and was unable to return to work. Liability was disputed until the day of trial when a compromise on liability was agreed and a settlement of £165,000.00 was reached at the court doors.

go to the top

Miss C

Miss C had been out shopping with a friend in Waltham Forest and was supposed to be picking up her little brother from her Nan's house Walthamstow, London, E17. She met up with some friends at McDonalds and one of them, someone she had met quite recently, gave her a lift to pick up her brother. She did not know when she got into the car that he was not insured to drive. They were driving down the Lea Bridge Road, in Hackney, London E5. They were overtaking traffic on the inside bus lane - illegally - when the driver lost control of the vehicle, swerved to avoid a puddle and collided with a bus on the other side of the road travelling in the opposite direction. Miss C sustained a head injury and was immediately knocked unconscious. She also sustained a haemopneumothorax of the right lung and a left femoral shaft fracture. A second passenger in the car was killed in the accident. The driver was convicted of causing Death by Dangerous Driving. We obtained judgement against the driver but looked to the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) to satisfy the claim because the driver was not insured. The MIB argued that it was not required to pay any part of the claim because, it said, Ms C knew or ought to have known that the Defendant was not insured. Counsel declined to enter into a Conditional Fee Agreement on the grounds that the claim was unlikely to succeed. Nevertheless, after obtaining evidence from family and friends showing that it was very unlikely that Ms C knew or ought to have known that the driver was uninsured the MIB agreed to pay 90% of the claim.

Although both parties' expert neurologists agreed that Miss C suffered a brain injury there was a difference of opinion in the severity of the injury. The Defendants evidence showed a remarkable improvement with few continuing cognitive impairments and little or no impact on future earning capacity or independence. The Claimant's evidence showed a significant degree of intellectual decline and found her memory functions to be globally impaired with marked frontal executive impairment limiting her future earning capacity and ability to live independently. The Claimant's pre-accident career path was very uncertain and the risk was that the judge would find there was no loss of earning capacity or ability to live independently. Nevertheless the claim settled for substantial damages of £200,000.

go to the top

T v F and others

We secured a £4.41 million settlement for a client who was a market stall trader. He sustained a serious brain injury when the van in which he was a front middle seat passenger was in collision with a bus. The client was not wearing a seatbelt.  He was left with difficulties with cognition, memory and frontal executive function and serious psychological, emotional and behavioural problems. He is unemployable and receives 24 hour care.  The Defendants contended that direct payments were available from the Local Authority and joined the Authority in the proceedings.  The Court approved a 15% reduction for contributory negligence in October 2006 and a net settlement figure of £3.75 million, in October 2007, with no reverse indemnity, thus allowing the client an opportunity in addition to claim and retain direct payments with a potential value of £1.6m over his lifetime.

go to the top