November 7, 2015
The High Court has approved the settlement of a motorbike crash injury compensation claim made on behalf of a catastrophically injured motorcyclist.
Forty-eight year old Anthony Royle and his pillion passenger were riding along the A54 near Chester on 20th September 2012, when they approached a stationary row of traffic. Anthony continued travelling at 60mph as he started overtaking the row of traffic, but he failed to notice the protruding ploughshare attachment on a tractor that was turning into a field.
Anthony and his pillion passenger met the ploughshare attachment at head height, and both were knocked unconscious due to the impact. Anthony´s bike continued a further 150 metres down the road before coming to rest on the grass verge.
As a result of the accident, Anthony suffered a catastrophic brain injury. He has significant permanent disabilities and will never be able to lead an independent life. On his behalf, a motorbike crash injury compensation claim was made against the owners of the farm to which the tractor belonged – GA and S Broster and Son.
It was alleged in the claim that the tractor was being driven by a seventeen-year-old farm employee; who, although he had a license to drive the tractor, did not have sufficient experience to manoeuvre the attachment safely – which had been across the white line in the road at the time Anthony had driven into it.
Liability was admitted by the farm owners, but their solicitors argued that Anthony had contributed to his injury by failing to give the tractor a wide berth when overtaking it. A compromise settlement of the motorbike crash injury compensation claim was negotiated that will Anthony with the care he needs for the rest of his life.
As the motorbike crash injury compensation claim was made on Anthony´s behalf, the settlement package had to be approved by a judge to make sure it was in his best interests. Consequently, at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Jay was told the circumstances of Anthony´s accident and the settlement package of compensation that was being proposed.
Approving the settlement, the judge said that, bearing in mind all the factors and the possibility of being considered partially responsible for his injuries, the settlement could have been better, but it could also have been worse.