Contact us to arrange your
FREE initial consultation

Email us Call me back

Boyes Turner personal injury lawyers have been representing a client who was involved in two road traffic accidents.

The first road first accident:our client was stationary waiting to join the traffic when a vehicle behind her drove into the back of her vehicle. The second accident occurred two years after the first one and the circumstances were very similar – our client was stationary giving way to a vehicle pulling out of a drive, when her vehicle was hit in the rear by another car.

Liability was admitted in respect of both accidents. The difficulty was to apportion blame between the defendants as our client sustained overlapping symptoms following both road traffic accidents.

The claimant has sustained a strain of her cervical and lumbar spine in both road traffic accidents. The claimant’s medical expert stated that the claimant was likely to have recovered from the strain of her lumbar spine a few years after the first accideent had the second one not occurred. Her relatively intrusive lower back pain was attributable to the second accident and would be permanent.

The first accident caused the claimant’s initial cervical symptoms, which were likely to improve but probably not resolve completely in the absence of the second accident. The second accident aggravated the claimant’s cervical symptoms caused by the first accident.

In order to value and settle both claims we needed to clarify with the medical expert what symptoms were attributable to the first accident and what symptoms were attributable to the second one.

The claimant’s medical expert stated that, on the balance of probability, the second accident was the main cause of the claimant’s cervical symptoms, which were also likely to be permanent. In respect of the claimant’s ongoing cervical symptoms, liability was apportioned 30% to the first accident and 70% to the second.

Our client claimed for future rehabilitation treatment as we have established that she would require acupuncture treatment in the future, several sessions per year, for as long as she was likely to continue working. The cost of future sessions was included in her claims and recovered from the defendants.

Our client also claimed for care and assistance which formed the biggest part of her claim as she was no longer able to perform heavier household duties and gardening.

Court proceedings were issued and served in respect of the first accident because of the limitation period but both claims settled eventually out of court. Our client received £32,000 compensation.