This site uses cookies.

Case Summary: T v S - Helen Reynolds, Spencers Solicitors Limited

06/01/23. Case Name: T v S
Accident Date: 08/08/2019
Settlement Date: 19/07/2022

Background & Liability

The Claimant aged 25, was involved in a road traffic accident, in which the Defendant failed to slow his vehicle and collided with the rear of the Claimant’s vehicle.

Liability was admitted by the Defendant’s insurers.

Personal Injuries

As a result of the accident T suffered with neck pain, left shoulder, arm and hand pain, left knee pain and pain in his lower back with pins and needles in the left leg. He also developed travel anxiety, associated with flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia.

T worked in IT and was absent from work for 2 weeks following the accident. He saw his GP on many occasions and took pain killers.

Due to the symptoms, T was unable to play football, do the shopping, lift and carry his young child, do any of his hobbies or household chores.

Physiotherapy treatment was recommended, and the Claimant received extensive physiotherapy, and subsequently chiropractic treatment, however there were interruptions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Neck and shoulder symptoms resolved around 18 months post-accident and symptoms in the knees were attributed to the accident for 2.5 years.

However, 2.5 years post-accident and despite treatment, T continued to suffer with pain and a twitching sensation in his lower back with pins and needles in the left leg. An MRI scan was interpreted as normal. The Orthopaedic medical expert was unable to explain on the basis of orthopaedic cause and suggested that T was reviewed by a Rheumatologist.

T also suffered with significant psychological symptoms. He suffered with recurrent distressing memories and dreams of the accident. He would avoid travelling in a car as both a driver and a passenger and would not let his child in the car. T lost interest in some activities and felt detachment from others. T became irritable and angry on occasions, he had problems concentrating suffered disturbed sleep. T suffered with low mood and self-esteem, reduced appetite, lack of motivation, irritability and was tearful.

T did not drive for the first 3 months. Upon returning to driving, he was anxious and hyper-vigilant. He felt vulnerable and distrusted other drivers when it came to braking. He found he was compulsively mirror-watching. T avoided driving if he could and tried to rely on lifts.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was diagnosed, and a course of psychological treatment was recommended.

The Claimant met the criteria for PTSD for 19 months (until the end of therapy) and subsequently suffered with an adjustment disorder, with anxiety and depressed mood.

The Psychological expert suggested that T would have the ability to overcome his symptoms with further treatment and driving lessons. A further 10 sessions of CBT with possibly EMDR was recommended along with a course of 6 advanced driving lessons, focussing on higher speed driving and motorways.

It was anticipated that the psychological symptoms would recede by the end of such treatment.

Upon disclosure of the medical evidence to date, and without evidence from a Rheumatologist, the Defendant accepted the Claimant’s Part 36 settlement offer.


The Claimant aged 28 at the time of settlement, received an award of £31,000.00.

Estimated breakdown:

General damages £23,888.00

Past Treatment costs £3685.00

Replacement Child Seat & Pushchair £1250.00

Past Prescriptions & Medication £380.00

Past Travel Expenses £117.00

Future treatment £1500.00
Future driving lessons £180.00

Solicitors for the Claimant: Helen Reynolds, Spencers Solicitors Limited

Image ©

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.