Support worker injured after park fall receives £100,000 in compensation

Elbow injuries

The fall resulted in John fracturing his elbow in four places and shattering his elbow socket. The outlook from doctors and his surgeon wasn’t promising; they believed he might have only 30% mobility in the elbow following the initial surgery.

Unfortunately, the planned surgery was delayed due to complications with John’s elbow healing, and he was enrolled in an intense course of physiotherapy. Initially, he was off work for six months before undergoing further surgery in the hope of improving his mobility, which delayed his return to work even further.

Despite the doctors’ best efforts, there is still concern John may never be able to fully straighten or extend his elbow. Further surgery could risk more damage, infection and even amputation. The possibility of an elbow replacement has been explored, but deemed too risky given his age, as it might require another replacement in the future, which again could lead to the loss of his arm.

The impact

John’s injury impacted all aspects of his life. He couldn’t perform any chores around the house and relied on his family for care, which put a strain on his relationships. The long-term prognosis remains unclear, with John left with around 50% movement in his right upper limb and showing early signs of arthritis.

Defence’s argument

The case was put to the defendant, John’s employer, who denied liability in full. In their view John was aware of the hazard and had the benefit of visiting the site previously.

They claimed John and the pupil he was supervising were working in a different area than everyone else, an area they were told not to work. The narrative they put forward was that John could have stepped away and not followed the student up the embankment, instead he decided to do so regardless. The defendant believed the branch snapped and caused the fall rather than the ground failing away beneath his feet.

Settlement  

The matter seemed destined for trial until the defence, realising the strength of our case, entered settlement negotiations in the final weeks leading up to the trial.

“The defence’s legal team would have reviewed our evidence and weighed the pros and cons of going to court. We had to prove the incident occurred as alleged and that the defendant should have taken better precautions to prevent the risk of injury, and that John suffered pain, injury and loss. They had to prove either that the accident didn’t happen as alleged or that John was at fault. The diligent efforts of our team in presenting compelling evidence pressured the defence into reaching a settlement, resulting in a compensation amount far beyond our client’s expectations.”

The defence made a part 36 offer of £25k which was rejected by the client. After further negotiations, strengthened by our medical reports revealing an uncertain prognosis and our arguments surrounding his disadvantage on the open labour market, we settled at £100,000, four times the original offer.