Navigating Legal Crossroads: A Mediation Position Statement in the Collision Dispute between Mr. Mayfield and Mrs. Barclay

Background Facts

1. A road traffic collision took place between the claimant and the opponent on 22 July 2018. The claimant’s Mini registration number EN14 LWB was hit by a Range Rover registration number LR63 PCG. The accident took place at around 11.30 pm. Mr Mayfield was driving south along Green Lanes in Palmers Green, north London. Mrs Lucy was coming into the road from Grenoble Road.

2. The location of the accident was A105 Green Lanes, London N13 at junction with Grenoble Road. The speed limit is 30 mph.

Quantum

3. Mr Darren Mayfield was a Warehouseman with Unistorage plc prior to the accident.

4. The injuries caused in the accident have been described in the medical report by Mr Edmund Minchew as “a brain injury affecting his frontal lobes” and a “moderately severe brain injury”. Mr Mayfield was assessed as having a Glasgow coma score of between 11 and 12. He had bruising to the right side of his head, which was confirmed by a CT scan to be an intra-cerebral haematoma to his right frontal lobe.

5. After the accident, Mr Mayfield has been downgraded in his work place due to the injury and its after effects. He suffers from constant headaches. Mr Mayfield is not able to carry out demanding tasks as he was used to before, and nor can he work on computers in the warehouse, or do filling of forms due to the injury and its effects. As a consequence, he has been down-graded to a general warehouseman, only able to four days a week. He is not even able to drive since the accident.

6. Mr Mayfield will take about 3 years to recover as per the medical report.

Issues

7. The issues between the parties are as follows:

a. Did Mrs Lucy Barclay drive negligently?

b. What is the proper level of damages for the injury caused to Mr Mayfield?

c. How much may Mr Mayfield recover for loss of earnings?

d. What other losses may Mr Mayfield recover and what is the quantum of damages?

Mr Mayfield’s Case on the Issues

(a) Mrs Lucy Barclay’s negligence

8. Mrs Lucy breached duty of care towards Mr Mayfield. Mrs Lucy Barclay has stated that as she was coming out of Grenoble Road and turning right, she noticed some a car near the North Circular approaching her and just at that time, a moped pulled up in front of her from the bus lane, and she slowed down to let it pass in front of her. The facts as relayed by the other parties involved in this incident present a different picture.

9. Mr Tashaun Gaines, who was the rider of the moped has averred that as he was on his way to River Crescent in Palmers Green and he took north along Green Lanes heading towards the traffic lights at the North Circular Road, the Range Rover that Mrs Lucy Barclay was driving came from his right up to the entrance of Grenoble Road just ahead of him with its headlights on.

10. Mr Tashaun Gaines further states that the Range Rover did not stop or indicate as it continued into Green Lanes and started to turn right into the lane. Mr Tashaun Gaines clearly mentions that he was forced to take evasive action due to the Range Rover. Therefore, the accident between the Mini and the Range Rover was likely the result of Mr Lucy Barclay’s decision to take a right into the main road from the side road just ahead of the moped driver.

11. The above is supported by the statement of Mr Joshua Hyde, who was the front seat passenger in the Mini. He has stated that the Range Rover pulled out of the side road into the North Circular Road suddenly, leading the driver Mr Mayfield to apply emergency brake before it crashed into the Range Rover. The photographs of the scene also indicate that the accident took place when Mr Mayfield was on the North Circular Road and Mrs Lucy Barclay drove into the road from the left on the Grenoble Road.

Comparable cases:

I. Wright v Lodge [1993] 4 All ER 299 CA.

Mrs. Shepherd’s car halted on a busy road due to mechanical failure. She remained in the car waiting for help. Lodge, a lorry driver, was speeding in foggy conditions, and swerved to avoid Mrs Shepherd’s car, then collided with Mr Wright’s car. Held that Mrs Shephard not liable as Wright was not a foreseeable victim of Shepherd’s misconduct. The relevant question is whether the defendant ought to have foreseen danger to the others, which can be inferred if the defendant’s own behaviour was careless.

II. Stovin v Wise (Norfolk County Council third party) [1996] 3 All ER 801 HL

Wise negligently drove onto the main road from the side road. He caused injury to Stovin who was driving down the main road at the time. The court held Wise liable in negligence because he was careless in driving out from a side road onto the main road without following the rules.

12. Mrs Lucy Barclay broke the following rules of the Highway Code:

a. Rule 103: give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time.

b. Rule 113: use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified.

c. Rule 127: A broken white line marks the centre of the road. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off.

d. Rule 144: You must not drive dangerously; drive without due care and attention; drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

e. Rule 146: Adapt driving to conditions. Where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging; in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority.

(b) Damages

13. Mr Mayfield is claiming damages as compensation for loss of earnings.

Comparable cases:

I. A v G Birmingham High Court

Court awarded 1.43 million pounds as damages for road accident. Also awarded 90,000 pounds for personal injury loss. In this case, the claimant had met with an accident for which the defendant was held liable in negligence.

II. British Transport Company v Gourley [1956] AC 185

Loss of profit from missing work can also be claimed for damages for personal injury.

III. Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27.

Loss of profit from missing work can also be claimed for damages for personal injury.

14. Considering these cases that have already been decided by the courts to allow claimant recovery of economic loss due to personal injury, it is urged that this mediation should consider these issues for resolving this current dispute.

(c) Loss of earnings

15. Prior to the accident, Mr Mayfield was employed as a warehouseman at Unistorage plc. He was earning £336 net per week in an hourly paid job. The four week period after the accident led to zero earnings. This is a loss of £1344 (£336*4 weeks). Even after rejoining Unistorage plc, his earnings have taken a loss because his duties have been reduced as a consequence of the accident effects. Now Mr Mayfield is earning £192 net per week, which is a loss of £144 per week.

16. As of this time, Mr Mayfield’s medical report states that he is only fit for reduced duties and this is likely to continue for 3 years after the accident. This means that the reduced earnings can be pegged at £20,736 (£144*48 weeks*3 years). Even if it is considered that Mr Mayfield would have not got any raise in his wages as on the date of the accident, the current loss as on date stands at £20,736.

(d) Other loss

17. Apart from the other loss, the following expenses are also claimed.

i. Headache pills: £4.50 per week.

ii. Hospital and GP visits: £110 (£5.00 per visit for 22 medical trips).

Mr Mayfield’s Objectives

18. Mr Mayfield’s losses include medical bills, and the loss of earnings. Mr Mayfield seeks loss of earnings and other expenses causes by the personal injury.

19. The payment of £10,000 as a full and final settlement of the personal injuries to Mr Mayfield is not acceptable because it is not adequate considering the loss sustained by him and its continuing effects. It is urged on the behalf of Mr Mayfield that as his ability to work is severely compromised after the accident, this is a fact that should be taken into consideration at the time of deciding upon the damages for personal injury. Mr Mayfield’s recovery and his progress in his professional field are relevant factors that are to be taken into consideration.

Claim History

20. As of this time, no claim has been issued. The solicitors for both parties have been engaged in pre-action correspondence as per the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims. A medical report has been produced by Mr Edmund Minchew.

21. Settlement negotiations have been carried out on the behalf of the parties. However, nothing constructive has resulted so far from the negotiations. The lower of the two estimates for the repairs to the Range Rover was £3,250, which is the amount that has been offered for the counter claim. However, Mrs Barclay says that the damage actually cost £5,750 to repair.

22. Mr Mayfield's injuries are difficult to quantify for the purpose of damages. Nevertheless, The solicitors for Mrs Barclay have sent a Calderbank offer to Mr Mayfield on 23 December 2019. The offer was for payment of £7,900 for the Mini and payment of £10,000 as a full and final settlement of the personal injuries claim by Mr Mayfield. This offer was rejected by Mr Mayfield as not being adequate.

23. The law indicates that the claimant in a personal injury dispute has the action for damages for economic loss of salary and earnings as well as payment of medical bills and hospitalisation. The facts indicate that the claimant has suffered an injury that has compromised his ability to continue working like he did before the accident and this has severely impacted his earnings.

24. The losses are set to be compounded over the next 3 years. These must be considered by the opponent before they suggest the damages that they are prepared to offer to Mr Mayfield. Adequate damages offered to Mr Mayfield that take all these factors into account would likely bring the dispute to a close.

25. Preliminary costs estimates indicate that the resolution of the dispute would cost £3,500 for each side. Further costs of taking this case to trial could go up to £25,000 for the claimant and the same or perhaps a little lower costs would be borne by the other side. Considering these cost estimates, it would be more prudent to resolve this matter through mediation and by offering adequate damages to the claimant in this case. These damages would likely be in the region of the costs of the case were it to go to trial. This is an important point of consideration for the desirable success of the mediation between the two parties.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Navigating Legal Challenges.