9 August 2006
A case involving serious spinal injuries which has previously been to the Court of Appeal on a procedural matter has settled at the doors of court before a trial on the issue of contributory negligence.
Jane Sowerby suffered
spinal injury when leaving the flat of a friend in April 2003. The flat was typical of many in London, with
stairs leading up to the entrance door to the ground floor. There was however no
handrail or other
guard on one side of the steps and so when Jane tripped, there was nothing to prevent her fall onto steps leading to the basement. As a result she fractured her spine. In the legal proceedings, the defendants accepted liability before the issue of formal proceedings, but subsequently sought to withdraw that admission. As a result Jane had to endure appeals to the Court of Appeal,
Sowerby v Charlton [2006 1WLR 568] where judgment was confirmed in her favour. However the issue of contributory negligence was left open for litigation.
Shortly before trial on that point however, settlement was reached for a seven figure sum. Jane is delighted with the settlement.
"It is obvious to say that the accident has changed my life. However the litigation process itself has been stressful, particularly with the defendants decision to appeal the matter to the Court of Appeal. I feel as if I can now take the settlement and use it to plan for the future, and to get on with my life with some security."
Leigh Day & Co who handled Janes case said:
"Jane is one of the most inspiring clients we have been lucky to represent. She has refused to let her accident dampen her enthusiasm for life, and indeed since the accident has taken up scuba diving, skiing and skydiving. Money can never compensate for what has happened, but we hope that the excellent settlement will allow her to put the litigation behind her and plan for the future."
For further information please contact
Sally Moore on 020 7650 1200.
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.