‘Alan’ – Fractured Spine sustained in an Accident at Work

Despite significant challenges around liability, including both contractors denying responsibility and the involvement of the Health and Safety Executive, a successful outcome was achieved for the client.

Through detailed investigation, expert engineering evidence, and strategic legal action, liability was ultimately agreed on a split basis, ensuring the client could move forward with his claim. Crucially, early offers were rejected, and sustained legal pressure led to a significantly improved five-figure settlement.

The compensation provides the client with important financial support following a serious spinal injury, alongside access to recommended rehabilitation such as physiotherapy and psychological treatment, including CBT. It also recognises the long-term impact on his ability to work and supports his transition forward after a life-changing workplace accident.

While the case involved complex arguments around responsibility, the final outcome ensured accountability was established and the client secured the financial resources needed to aid his recovery and future stability.

In this case study you’ll learn:

• How our client suffered a serious fall while removing a lift car at a residential site
• Details the severe injuries sustained, including a fractured spine, head injury, and psychological trauma
• Outlines the long-term impact on the client’s ability to work and overall wellbeing
• Highlights the complexity of the case, with multiple contractors disputing liability
• Shows how investigations involved the Health and Safety Executive and expert evidence
• Explains the role of medical and psychological assessments in supporting the claim
• Covers the legal process, including issuing proceedings and a liability-only trial
• Demonstrates how engineering evidence helped establish shared responsibility
• Explains contributory negligence and how liability was ultimately apportioned
• Highlights how strong legal strategy led to a significantly improved settlement outcome
• Emphasises the importance of specialist solicitors in complex, multi-defendant claims

Key elements of our client’s case

In this case, our client was injured as a result of an accident at work where he sustained a fractured spine (L3 vertebrae) which required surgery.

In addition to his fracture spine, he suffered from black eyes, a cut to his chin, an injury to his neck and an injury to his head with subsequent memory difficulties and extensive bruising. Our client also suffered depression, nightmares and frequent sleep disturbance and was unable to return to work following the accident.

On the day of the accident, our client was working as a self-employed labourer working as a subcontractor in the process of removing a lift car from a residential tower block when the lift car dropped down the shaft and our client fell approximately 3 metres.

Where our specialist serious injury experience really added value to our client’s situation

When instructed by our client to act for him, the liability position for the accident was unclear and we consequently made enquiries with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) who were investigating the accident. Over the following months, numerous approaches were made to the HSE who finally confirmed that no legal action was to be taken against the main contractor for the accident.

We therefore sought sight of the full HSE investigation file which was not disclosed until several months later. Upon review and after analysing the evidence of the accident circumstances, we decided letters of claim should be sent to the main and sub-contractors responsible for the work on the day of the accident.

Liability was denied by the main contractor who alleged that their sub-contractor was responsible for the health and safety on site on the day of the accident. The sub-contractor subsequently denied liability alleging the main contractor’s project manager had attended site on the day of the accident.

It was alleged by the sub-contractor that the main contractor decided to ignore advice on how to safely remove the lift car by waiting for scaffolding to be erected and that this was the cause of the accident. Our client believed that his safety was the responsibility of the main contractor.

In order to properly document our client’s injuries, we sought medical evidence from a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Psychologist. The medical evidence confirmed that our client’s symptoms should stabilise within 3 years from the date of the accident but he was at a disadvantage on the open labour market and physiotherapy was recommended. The psychological evidence confirmed that our client suffered with stress symptoms, mood disturbance, elevated general anxiety and social withdrawal and recommended a course of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT).

As both defendants continued to deny liability, we were forced to issue legal proceedings against both contractors and as a result the sub-contractor commenced legal proceedings against the main contractor.

Following the procedural elements after the issuing of proceedings, the Court listed the matter for a directions hearing to decide how our client’s case should proceed and it was agreed that our client’s case be listed for a liability-only trial to determine who was responsible for our client’s injuries.

We commissioned an engineering expert’s report which confirmed that both main and sub-contractors were negligent, however, that the sub-contractor had overriding responsibility for the safety on site.

Reaching settlement

After further extensive analysis of the accident circumstances and the evidence and once we had disclosed the engineering evidence, we recommended that a liability offer was put forward which was subsequently accepted by both contractors with some liability for the accident being accepted by our client for contributory fault and the remaining liability being apportioned equally between the main contractor and sub-contractor, which was then formalised in a court order.

Following agreement in respect of liability the sub-contractor put forward an offer on behalf of both contractors for a five-figure sum.

Following our advice, the offer was rejected by our client and we were instructed to make a counter offer for a significantly higher sum on his behalf.

Following further pressure caused by us advancing the procedural elements of the case, the sub-contractor put forward a much improved offer on behalf of both contractors which was accepted by our client.

This case demonstrates that engaging lawyers who have a track record of handling difficult liability cases involving multiple potential defendants is extremely important to ensure the right outcome is achieved for the injured party.