Settlement of over £3 million in amputation claim for 62-year-old construction director

Our client

Our client is a loving husband and father. He is a driven individual with an active personality. He was very fit and healthy and his pre-accident hobbies included cycling, golf, skiing, hill-walking, football, squash and scuba diving. He cycled 70 miles per week, walked 10-20,000 steps a day without any restriction and skied regularly. He would regularly get up at 5am and go for a long cycle ride before commuting to work up to 5 times per week. He also took part in charity cycles raising money for the Air Ambulance. He loved his job, was highly respected by his work colleagues, and enjoyed networking and the variety of the projects he worked on.

The impact of the injuries our client suffered as a result of this collision, inevitably devastated him and his family, and completely altered his active lifestyle.

Background to the case

He was in the process of crossing a 3 lane junction in central London at a pedestrian crossing with traffic lights on a bright and sunny day in August 2022, when he was struck by the Defendant riding a large powerful motorcycle at excessive speed (at least 55mph in a 30mph zone).

As a result of the crash, our client suffered multiple injuries. He remained in intensive care for 7 weeks and was unconscious for around 5 weeks. He also suffered two cardiac arrests necessitating resuscitation. Our client was finally discharged home after over 4 months in hospital. Despite an early below knee amputation, the knee joint was not salvageable after further surgery, necessitating a higher level amputation 18 months later.

The amount of medical treatment, surgeries and rehabilitation was extensive including a shoulder replacement and psychiatric treatment for him and his family.

It was clear from the outset, given the seriousness of our client’s injuries, that this was going to be a case of substantial value and we were very fortunate to form an excellent collaborative working relationship with the insurers of the motorcyclist and their appointed solicitors.

Interim payments and the Rehabilitation Code

Liability was not openly admitted and there was a dispute concerning the traffic lights but the Metropolitan Police prosecuted the Defendant for causing serious injury by reckless driving. However, given it was very clear that primary liability would be establish the insurers took a very pragmatic view and made interim payments and full funding in respect of rehabilitation.

The Claimant returned to work quickly and worked at home in a more administrative capacity. He was remarkably focussed and invested in his rehabilitation.

A case manager was jointly instructed and due to the collaborative approach the rehabilitation process was seamless albeit setbacks for medical reasons, such as the need for a higher level amputation. He had full home assessment and intermediary adaptations were made to ensure his safety throughout the process. His garage was converted into a gym and the downstairs toilet converted into a wet room. Ramps to the front and rear of the property were provided

Our client received full funding for prosthetic provision and rehabilitation from Dorset Orthopaedic. He had intensive physiotherapy and personal training and regain a good level of fitness and was able to return to most of his hobbies in spite of his injuries. He took part in a cycle to Paris in 2025 for the London Air Ambulance was just remarkable. He was also able to return to working in London 3 days per week.

The insurers fully funded the Genium X4 prosthesis which is the best model on the market for high level amputees. There was no dispute about the provision of this prosthesis which is quite unusual.

Criminal trial

At the criminal trial in July 2025 the Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of Fraud by False Representation (dishonestly making a false representation to his insurer that he held a valid license without any driving convictions). He was then found guilty by a jury of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving. This was on the specific factual basis that he drove at excessive speed and went through the traffic lights before they had turned green. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.

Contributory negligence

Contributory negligence remained an issue on the basis that our client should have seen the Defendant’s speeding vehicle approaching; and that he was intoxicated at the material time (which was highly disputed). This was largely based on some of the contemporaneous reporting by witnesses that the pedestrian lights may not have been green when he set off.

No concessions on contributory negligence were made by our client at the Joint Settlement Meeting despite the suggest he should be 15% to blame. This was based on the causative potency and blameworthiness of the Defendant’s actions by travelling at circa twice the speed limit, as well as the jury finding that he likely drove through a red traffic light. The Claimant had reached lane 3 when the motorcycle overtook the stationary vehicles waiting at the lights and we could not accept he would bear any proportion of the blame for the collision.

Issues between the parties at the Joint Settlement Meeting

The key quantum disputes related to the major heads of loss included: (i) our client’s loss of future earnings/promotion prospects; (ii) accommodation, namely the cost of purchasing and adapting a new home for his current and future use as a prosthetic and wheelchair user; (iii) his likely retirement date in the absence of the collision (iv) prosthetics and the cost of future care.

On accommodation, although there were arguments about the cost of change, upon the advice of his legal team, our client relied upon Riley v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 2417 as authority for the proposition that it is not a failure to mitigate for a claimant not to seek a contribution from his partner to the purchase of a new disability-adapted home. Given the increased risk of relationship breakdown and our client’s need for suitable accommodation, he was therefore intending to ask his wife to isolate her share of the sale of the marital home rather than using it towards the purchase of a new property. This issue was material because it added at least an additional £300,000 to his claim.

Settlement

The parties were able to agree a settlement figure at a JSM that reflected a reasonable compromise on our client’s likely retirement age (given his stated pre-accident intentions) on a disability basis, the extent of his immediate needs (less significant) and future care/holiday needs (commercial vs gratuitous split) and the number and cost of the prosthetics, but near full recovery of his accommodation claim. This reflected the difficulty for the Defendant in contending that it was unreasonable for our client to act rationally to protect his position against the risk of relationship breakdown.