FDR Law Case Study - Personal Injury - Construction Accident

 

In 2014 a self-employed builder attended a private dwelling construction site to carry out additional works after a single storey structure had been constructed, but not completed. 

 

The builder suffered injury when he fell through the single storey roof extension landing on a concrete floor.  He was rendered unconscious and sustained fractures to his ribcage and lower back.  In addition, there were minor soft tissue injuries with other cuts, bruises and damage to an adrenal gland.

 

Reports were secured from three specialisms of medical experts and a forensic accountant.  Liability was admitted by the Defendant company who were in overall control of the building contract. 

 

Although the injuries initially appeared significant, our client recovered reasonably well and made a full recovery returning to employment just over 8 months after the accident. 

 

In view of the head injury, it was necessary to delay obtaining some medical evidence from a Consultant Neurologist until sometime after the accident and fortunately it was confirmed that there were no long-term issues. 

 

The case approached the 3 years’ limitation date and protective proceedings were issued in view of the admission of liability and negotiations continued with a view to reaching settlement.  However, it was at this stage the defendants sought to withdraw their admission of liability and sought to defend themselves based on a decision made in a Health & Safety prosecution.  The law on such issues was complex, but favoured the Defendant. 

 

As a result, there were negotiations between the parties in an attempt to compromise the case on the best possible terms for our client and eventually a settlement was reached between the parties for £17,000 with payment of legal costs. 

 

This was considered the best possible outcome for our client as their After the Event insurers withdrew indemnity following the Health & Safety Executive decision.  If the claim had been continued it is likely that the defendant would have been successful which would have left our client with no compensation at all.