The claimant and her husband pursued active leisure pursuits – they enjoyed climbing, walking, falconry, motor cycling and caravanning.
The claimant was involved in a motorway collision with a van. The collision was entirely the fault of the van driver. The collision resulted in the below-the-knee amputation of the claimant’s right leg.
The amputation had a profound effect, not only upon her work but also upon her social life and that of her husband.
Prior to the mediation the insurer of the van had been reluctant to accept that a lower-limb amputation could have such a profound effect as the claimant had asserted. Therefore there was a large gulf between the parties’ respective valuations of the claim.
At the mediation the claimant spoke to the insurer’s representative at length, explaining just how much her life had changed as a result of the amputation.
At one point during the mediation she removed her prosthesis and demonstrated just how difficult life was for her with an artificial limb. The eloquent way in which she spoke demonstrated to the insurer’s representative that the insurer needed to revise upwards its valuation of the claim. This eventually led to a settlement at a very substantial figure, every penny of which the claimant deserved.
Had the litigation continued, the claimant would ultimately have given evidence at the trial but her evidence would have been limited to her confirming that the content of her witness statement was correct and then answering questions from the judge and the two barristers.
She would not have had the opportunity to speak to the insurer in the way that was possible at the mediation and to convey so powerfully how her injuries had affected her.