Our client, Connor* (name changed for privacy and anonymity reasons), was catastrophically injured while riding his motorcycle at high speed. His injuries were devastating: a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), heavily fragmented skull fractures, cranial nerve damage, facial and orbital fractures, spinal fractures and multiple orthopaedic injuries. He had no memory of the collision.
Difficult evidence
The defendant driver denied fault. His account was that he had started an overtaking manoeuvre, abandoned it, returned fully to his lane, checked his mirrors properly and was then struck from behind. The police evidence appeared to support that account, and the available witness evidence seemed broadly consistent with it. Early accident reconstruction evidence also pointed in the same direction, while the dashcam footage provided only partial context rather than a clear answer.
Connor instructed solicitors shortly after the collision, but the defendant’s account proved decisive at the first stage of the claim. The original solicitors discontinued the case, concluding that the prospects did not clear the “better than 50%” threshold required to justify pressing on.
Moving from previous solicitors
Connor was then referred to Hugh James because of our specialist expertise in difficult motorcycle litigation, particularly that of Mark Robinson, Partner in the Serious Injury team. Mark is experienced in cases where the initial evidential picture appears unfavourable, but where careful technical analysis can materially alter the outcome.
From the outset, the risks were very substantial. Even if some liability could be established, contributory negligence was likely to be a major issue. Comparative authorities suggested that deductions could exceed 70% in circumstances involving extreme speed, meaning the claim faced a significant uphill battle.
Full review of the case
We approached the case as a forensic reinvestigation rather than a re-run of the earlier work. We reviewed the police file line by line and identified issues that had not previously been pursued. One key witness statement, which appeared central to the defendant’s account, was unsigned. More importantly, the paperwork suggested the presence of a passenger witness who had not been identified or traced during the earlier investigation.
New statements were obtained from both witnesses which changed the evidential background. Their accounts did not describe a careful driver properly checking mirrors and returning safely to lane. Instead, they described poor and erratic driving by the defendant over a sustained period before the collision, making the later denial of fault much harder to sustain.
With that fresh testimony in place, the technical evidence could be reconsidered in light of the new witness evidence. Highly specialised accident reconstruction analysis was commissioned, focusing on what should have happened if the defendant’s version of events were true and whether it realistically could have occurred at the extreme closing speeds involved. The analysis addressed mirror-checking protocols, sightlines, lateral vehicle movement and the very tight timing windows that arise when vehicles collide at very high speed.
The conclusion was critical. The defendant was still moving out to overtake at the point of impact and had not carried out an effective observation. The reconstruction evidence showed why a “mirror check” in those circumstances needed to be meaningful, and why the defendant’s actions, when mapped against the geometry and timings, did not fit the collision dynamics.
Even with that progress, the case remained difficult. Causation was also in issue because Connor’s helmet became dislodged during the collision. The defence alleged improper fastening, implying that the severity of the traumatic brain injury was therefore Connor’s responsibility.
We obtained targeted lay evidence and expert opinion examining the collision as a multi-stage event. That evidence analysed how the forces developed and why helmet displacement, in this particular impact sequence, was inevitable even with proper fastening. It also addressed the more difficult question of whether Connor would have suffered a severe TBI in any event. The conclusion supported Connor: the nature and magnitude of the forces meant that a severe brain injury would have been sustained regardless.
Admission from defendants
Liability, causation and apportionment remained live issues up to the trial date. Five days before trial, the parties attended a liability Joint Settlement Meeting, at which the defendants conceded primary liability. Judgment was entered on a basis that produced a 47.5% recovery. That materially exceeded what had been a realistic expectation at trial, given the contributory negligence risk and the earlier state of the evidence.
As Connor’s injuries were life-changing, and his future uncertain, quantification was equally demanding. The claim required extensive multidisciplinary expert evidence: neurological prognosis after severe TBI; neuropsychological and psychiatric effects; residual earning capacity; long-term care and case management; loss of financial capacity; and the future risk of post-traumatic epilepsy.
Capacity issues needed careful handling throughout, and ultimately court approval was required to secure finality properly and protect Connor’s position.
Settlement reached
Connor’s case settled on a provisional damages basis at £4.376 million gross. The settlement preserved his right to return to court if he develops epilepsy, a safeguard built into the outcome because that particular risk could not be resolved with certainty at the time of settlement.
Given the sensitivity of the injuries and the circumstances, an anonymity order was put in place.
What started as a discontinued claim, assessed as unlikely to succeed, resulted in a recovery beyond realistic trial expectations and a multi-million-pound settlement structured to protect Connor’s future.
Mark Robinson, Partner in our Serious Injury team, acted for Connor and said:
“This was an exceptionally difficult case. Connor’s speed created a very significant litigation risk, and the claim had already been discontinued before we were instructed. However, the evidence required a much deeper forensic review.
By re-examining the police material, obtaining fresh witness evidence and rebuilding the accident reconstruction evidence, we were able to show that the defendant’s account did not withstand proper scrutiny. The result secured meaningful accountability and, most importantly, a settlement that will help protect Connor’s future care and financial security.”
