Mr Wiseman on the day in question had taken his dog for a walk in the area where he lives.
This area was a newly developed group of houses. We initially approached the Developer on site, however, the Developer indicated initially that there were two developers on the particular site and that they were not therefore responsible for all the areas. Further information was provided to the initial Developer and eventually we were advised that it was another developer who was responsible for the pathways and roads prior to being adopted by the Local Authority.
The claim was redirected to the Second Developer and initially they denied that they were responsible for the work and that it was the responsibility of the third developer.
We approached the Third Developer, who confirmed that following their enquiries that they were not the responsible party and did not have ownership of the land in question.
Following further investigations, it was narrowed down to two potential companies being responsible for the area. Letters were despatched to both these companies advising that we would have to commence legal proceedings against them both, on the basis that they were blaming each other. Eventually, one of the developers confirmed that they were in a position to accept that they were the company responsible and accepted responsibility for causing our Client’s injuries. This was subject to our Client being partially to blame for the injuries, on the basis that they considered the hazard was clearly visible. It took just over a year of the developers blaming each other for us to secure an admission of fault.
Our Client sustained a break to the outside of his left foot and was placed in a cast for around six weeks and was then in a walker boot. Once the cast was removed, unfortunately, our Client was still in pain and had an injection to his foot. It transpired that the accident had caused the Client symptoms of Freiberg Disease to be brought forward by a period of one to two years. The Claimant had a further surgery which it was hoped would relieve the significant symptoms.
As a result of this incident, our Client became quite depressed due to the restriction that the foot injury had on his day-to-day life.
Once the medical evidence had been collated, the Claimant, following some deductions, was offered £10,000 by the Defendant which he accepted. This was a good result as it had been particularly difficult at the beginning of the case to establish who the correct developer was and we were really pleased to secure this result of our Client.