A stubborn car park owner turned out to be no match for our client, Shana McMahon, who successfully overcame denials of liability from the defence to win her case in court.
Claim for Moped Accident in car park
Miss McMahon, from Bristol, was on her moped when she entered the car park to visit nearby shops, something she had done on a regular basis. Unfortunately, on this occasion, as she entered here wheel hit a pothole, causing her to fall from her moped and suffer injuries to her neck, chest and head, for which she attended A&E.
Following the accident, Miss McMahon, who was a keen footballer, was forced to give up the sport she loved due to her injuries. The bruising to her chest and head continued to cause her pain and discomfort for nearly two years and she also suffered significant psychological distress during this period, including anxiety when travelling, flashbacks and nightmares. As a result, her sleep and studying was also affected.
Throughout the claim process, the owner of the car park denied liability for Miss McMahon’s accident. Their defence was built on the fact that the car park was on private land and that signs had been put up in the car park, stating this fact. However, this was questioned, as it was highlighted that there was no evidence of such signs existing, so therefore there was no way that she could have known it was private property.
To support this, Miss McMahon was able to produce photographic evidence of her own, that showed other members of the general public using the car park, proving that this was not down to the misjudgment of the claimant, just common knowledge of the car park.
In regard to the condition of the car park, which ultimately caused the accident to happen in the first place, the defendant admitted that there had never been a system for formal inspection but he did assert that he checked the land every three to four months. However, they went on to admit that they were aware of potholes on the land but asserted that he believed the defect that caused Miss McMahon’s accident was less than the stated three and half centimetres.
This claim was countered by the claimant side, who pointed out the lack of photographic evidence produced by he defendant to compliment their argument. Attention was also drawn to the witness statement that was given by the defendant team that was described as ‘very peculiar’ and ‘identically worded’ to the defendants statement and therefore was in breach of CPR 32PD.18.1.
In the run up to the trial the claimant side initially made a Part 36 offer to settle the case for £3,800, however the defendant remained stubborn and rejected this offer and so proceedings were issued.
Following all of the evidence being heard, the client was eventually awarded £5,014.91 by the judge, which included interest on damages and interest pursuant to part 36.