Our client was involved in an accident during a 5 a side indoor football game with his friends. Prior to their booked football game, the sports hall was used as a badminton court. The leisure centre staff duly removed the badminton nets, shuttlecocks and equipment. This was replaced with goal posts on both ends of the hall. Our client and his group recorded that there were neither any cleaning regimens nor any warning signs of any liquid substances on the sports hall ground during this transition.
After 10 minutes of our client’s football game, the client attempted a shot at goal with his foot slipping of the laminated wooden ground. Our client landed backwards head first against the floor losing consciousness for a brief period of time. The short prognosis of injuries included bruising and pain to the back and neck. However, the longer prognosis included blunt head trauma and cerebral concussion resulting in memory loss. This significantly impacted the thought process mentally in searching for the right words to use when writing or in conversation.
Our client was incapacitated for the following 32 weeks post-accident. Our client was planning to become a fully qualified driving instructor. During this period our client did not feel comfortable driving as he experienced light-headedness, head pain and a buzzing sound circulating around his head.
The Defendants denied liability in full noting the accident circumstances to be factually incorrect. The Defendants relied on their facts that our client and his group spilt water with their water bottles in the sports hall so therefore were not in breach of their statutory duty under S2 Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
Our client provided clarity that his group were witnesses to the fact that the water bottles were not brought directly onto the sports hall surface. Four witnesses were approached agreeing to the client’s account on the accident. Our client visited numerous consultants that included an orthopaedic, psychologist and a clinical neuropsychologist that also subscribed to the version of events resulting in the aforementioned injuries.
Subsequent to the medical evidence and witness statements, an offer was made of £20,000 to the defendants on a 75/25 liability basis. The Defendants avoided trial and accepted this offer to conclude this case.