We recovered damages for the Robert's family following
his death in a car crash in 2002.
Richard Earle acted on behalf of the
administrators and personal representatives of the estate of
Robert claiming damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.
Robert died following a car accident in August 2002.
The first defendant in the case was convicted of driving
without due care and attention.
The first defendant admitted liability although a potential
allegation was raised against Robert for failing to wear a
seatbelt.
Because of the damage caused to Robert's vehicle in the crash,
it was not possible to ascertain whether or not he was wearing a
seat belt. The severity of the damage to the car indicated that
even if he was wearing a seat belt, it would not have saved
Robert's life.
At the time of the accident Robert was 28 years of age.
He was the father of two children aged just over three and
five years. The natural mother was not dependent on Robert and
therefore had no claim in her own right either in terms of
dependency or against the estate.
Robert was unmarried and had left the children’s natural
mother. At the time of his death he had been living with
his fiancée, the second defendant, for a period of over two years.
The two year period was crucial because that entitled his fiancée
to a share of the dependency.
At the time of the accident, Robert was running a company
specialising in designing and building glass partitions and his
fiancée was similarly employed by the company as a book keeper.
As this was a new company with no material track record there
were material issues as to the extent to which the company would
have prospered and Robert's likely income as a result.
The arrangements regarding the children were unusual, in that
before the accident they were living and cared for on a shared
basis between John and his fiancée as well as their natural mother,
living half the week with each.
After the accident this arrangement continued for sometime with
John's fiancée still looking after them for about 50% of the time.
This ceased though after the fiancée ceased her employment with
John's company.
As she failed to provide instructions in respect of her own
claim and there was a potential conflict of interest between the
value of her dependency and the children’s dependency, it was
necessary to join her as second defendant.
There was an added complication as the children were
entitled to shares in the company, which was a continuing and
ongoing benefit and source of income after their father’s
death.
This led to issues over the valuation of the shares and could
have impacted on the level of the children’s dependency given that
they had an appreciating asset in the company in the form of the
shares.
Following negotiations with the representatives of the first
defendant, the terms of settlement were agreed. The children
will receive the majority of the settlement, which
was £250,000. This was approved in the High Court and the
balance will be paid to the estate and to the second
defendant.
For further information or if you have a road traffic accident claim please contact
Richard Earle on
020 7861 4041 or email richard.earle@ffw.com
You can discuss your road traffic
accident claim with any member of our personal injury team on freephone 0800
358 3848, email personalinjury@ffw.com or
complete our short enquiry form.