We promise that someone will get back to you to talk through your situation and explain how we can help. You can expect to hear back from us within two working hours and certainly no later than 10 am on the next working day.
Sorry, there are a few problems with the information you have entered. Please correct these before continuing.
Your submission has been received. We'll be in touch soon.
David Parker was an AA patrolman and had attended a breakdown just off Junction 15 of the M1. The AA member reported hearing noises coming from beneath her car, so David had used the trolley jack provided as part of his roadside equipment to raise each corner in turn to inspect the underside of the vehicle.
As he was removing the trolley jack from under the car for the final time, the pumping handle detached just as he was lifting the jack onto the kerb. The trolley jack then fell onto his right shin and he suffered severe bruising and a soft tissue injury to the right lower leg. He had to undergo surgery to remove a blood clot from his right leg and shortly after he was discharged he developed cellulitis and required several repeat surgeries and various skin grafts.
His wound did not heal and his pre-existing asthma and type II diabetes deteriorated due to his inability to exercise. He was unable to return to work and was subsequently dismissed on grounds of ill health. David was put in touch with Access Legal through his trades union, the Independent Democratic Union.
His case took nearly four years to resolve as his employer failed to respond in a timely manner and consistently denied any blame or liability for the accident, saying that the that the jack they supplied as part of his equipment was in no way unsuitable for the purposes for which it was used.
We then began gathering extensive medical reports to confirm the nature of his injuries and his likely prognosis from experts including consultant orthopaedic and general and vascular surgeons. They noted that, aside from his obvious and immediate injuries, David’s overall health had also deteriorated in the four years since the accident. Our medical experts maintained that this was due to, or at least accelerated by, the accident itself.
David was also clearly at a disadvantage on the open labour market. Indeed a ‘capacity for employment’ report by a consultant physician instructed by the other side concluded that would be unable to return to work with the AA for at least a further 18 months and even if he could find alternative employment, he would only have been capable of tackling much lighter, more sedentary duties.
In late 2015 the other side made an offer to settle of £200,000 (gross of CRU). Because David had been in receipt of state benefits up to this point, those had to be repaid through the government’s Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) once a compensation payment in connection with the accident had been made.
The offer was accepted and an agreement was prepared and approved at Court. David received his full compensation shortly afterwards.