HQ03X01066
STUART PARRY
and
MR M. J. HUMBERT
CASE REPORT
1. Mr Stuart Parry was born on the 30th April 1967 and so was almost
33 at the date of the accident on the 7th April 2000. He was 37 at
the date of the trial of his damages claim in January and February 2005.
LIABILITY
2. Judgment was entered for 85%.
QUANTUM
3. The Claimant sustained a severe brain injury, a severe mid-thoracic spinal cord injury
leading to T6 motor and sensory complete paraplegia, together with significant injuries to the
chest, leg, shoulder, cheek, cervical spine, hands and brachial plexus. He has made a complete or
moderate recovery from all injuries except the thoracic spine and brain, but the upper limb injuries
have some impact on ability to move and transfer, exaggerating the effects of the paralysis. Mr
Parry needs help with all transfers, and needs 24 hour care. His long-term partner left him in
September 2004 as a result of the stresses imposed by the injury and disability. Since mid 2004,
the Claimant has been able to employ a case manager, who has arranged a care package; this has
allowed him to expand his horizons, and start to achieve a quality of life which he feels has been
denied to him since the accident; "Getting out and about again in the last six months has been like
coming out of prison".
4. The spinal cord injuries and effects were described in reports by Mr Brian
Gardner. There was no defence medical evidence.
5. The brain injury was dealt with by Professor Wood and Dr Skelton-Robinson in
their reports. They were in almost complete agreement, that this was a severe
injury which had caused weaknesses affecting reason, speed and accuracy of information
processing, verbal and non-verbal recall memory, and minor weaknesses relating
to the frontal lobes. There was some difference on test results, but Professor
Wood considered that the variation was not particularly significant, although
it might reflect changes in the Claimant's mood and temperament, and the impact
of psychological distress. There was an apparent difference between the experts
as to the cause of Mr Parry's irritability and outbursts of temper, but this was
resolved in the joint statement. We submitted that this aspect of the case did
not justify the experts being called to give oral evidence, and we invited the
Court to deal with the issue on the written reports and joint statement.
6. There is an increased risk of epilepsy but, if it were to develop, the Claimant
would be protected by the care package which we submitted is appropriate; therefore
provisional damages would not be suitable.
7. There were two major issues identified at trial; first, whether the Claimant's
present house is capable of being made satisfactory for him and, secondly, the
extent and cost of the 24 hour care package. There was also some dispute also
about the suggested career path for the Claimant.
Accommodation
8. Mr Parry lives in a small, detached, two-bedroomed house which has been extended to
provide a ground floor bedroom and shower room. Mr Valentine, the Claimant's expert, explained
in detail why that house is inappropriate in several respects, many of which appeared to be agreed
in theory by the defence expert, Mr Cowan. An additional consideration for the Court was that
the Claimant cannot access parts of his house.
9. It was our contention that Mr Cowan was unable to provide a workable scheme
for the present house. There were some parts of his own recommendations which
could not be accommodated in this house. Also, he acknowledged that the presence
(or reasonable contemplation?) of children would render this house unsuitable.
10. An incidental issue was that, since his partner left, Mr Parry no longer felt
comfortable in this house; he and his partner bought it together in 1995.
11. There were some features of Mr Cowan's report which we submitted were inappropriate.
Our submissions were that, first, the use of the Halifax Housing Index is not
an accurate guide to property values in this type of situation and climate. Secondly,
he had not addressed vehicular access, or access to the bedrooms. Thirdly, he
appeared not to have considered a night sleeper. Fourthly, he appeared to have
relied on casual information to found his valuation of a building site. Fifthly,
he had given no written consideration to the obvious possibility of purchasing
a bungalow and adapting it. Sixthly, he had deducted the full value of the present
house in the Roberts v Johnstone calculation, instead of only half.
12. Mr Cowan had not visited since December 2002.
13. The experts produced an exceptionally helpful joint statement in which they
set out the three relevant options, namely a new bungalow, adapting the present
house, or building a new one. They agreed that there were no plots currently available
(there was an incidental issue about the area in which the Claimant would like
to live). The real issue for the Court was therefore whether Mr Parry should reasonably
remain in his present house, which depended on whether it could realistically
be extended and adapted to give suitable living space. If not, the experts differed
as to the cost of a bungalow (Mr Cowan put forward a figure of £300,000 without,
we submitted, any supporting evidence), and as to the cost of adapting it (£104,700
against £75,199). On the new-build option, the difference between the experts
was as to the floor area needed by a person in a wheelchair, which took us back
to the question of the present house. If Mr Valentine was correct in his assertions,
it followed that the reasonable solution would be to buy a bungalow and adapt
it as he described.
14. Mr Cowan concluded that the Claimant's present cottage could be adapted to
meet his requirements, and it should not be necessary for him to move to an alternative
property. As the judge said in his judgment, that conclusion was ultimately agreed
to be totally unsustainable.
15. The judge therefore had to decide between conversion of an alternative property,
or new build (Mr Cowan's alternative suggestion). The judge was satisfied that
"the obtaining of a suitable plot of land in a suitable location is purely speculative,
as is its likely cost".
Care
16. The joint statement by the care experts agreed that 24 hour care is necessary, but Mrs
Grindley, the defence expert, strongly disagreed Mrs Sargent's rates; she asserted that it is
appropriate to pay a daily rate rather than an hourly one.
17. The position at trial was that Mr Parry had a care package arranged and managed
by an agency, CPA. This had been developing since mid 2004, before his partner
left, and the development had been accelerated since then. It was clear, in our
submission, that, sad though the departure must have been, it had allowed the
Claimant to develop his life so that his physical and mental condition had improved.
Previously, he arranged his life round his partner, not going out, not eating,
and not looking after his physical and mental health. Mrs Grindley said, in the
joint statement, that she noted that Mr Parry could cope for long periods on his
own in the house when he was living with his partner, although "this was not necessarily
beneficial".
18. A strong impression of the value of good quality care came from phrases used
by the Claimant in his statement:
1 "This has resulted in a tremendous improvement in my quality of life"
2 "I regularly go out for meals with my carers"
3 "I now regularly socialise with my friend Ken"
4 "The last six months have been a dramatic improvement in my quality of life. I
don't want to kill myself any more. I feel as if I have a future. I don't feel like a
worthless human being now. I feel I have something to give to other people and
to society now.".
19. Mrs Grindley costed care to age 55 at £19,945 a year, compared to Mrs Sargent's
£97,968. Although she accepted by trial that 24 hour care was desirable, she did
not cost for it. She said in the joint statement that she "refers to Able Community
Care to provide a costing assessment for a residential carer to be paid on a daily
rate". We challenged the admissibility of that approach, submitting that it is
the duty of an assessing expert to bring her expertise to bear on issues such
as this, not simply to seek to delegate to an organisation, hundreds of miles
from the Claimant, which had not assessed the Claimant.
20. The experts disagreed as to the need for a second carer when Mr Parry is about
55, or older. Mr Gardner described the upper limb problems, and considered that
the need for a second carer to turn the Claimant, and to help him to transfer,
should be considered by a risk assessment. He felt that the risk assessor should
take into account mild weakness of the left arm, pain in the left hand, poor truncal
balance, spasms, and impaired concentration and a tendency to lose sequencing.
Mrs Sargent, the Claimant's care expert, thought that the Claimant clearly would
need increasing care, and she costed for six extra hours of care a day. Mrs Grindley
recited in the joint statement Mr Gardner's opinion that two carers may
be necessary from 55, and "notes this is a possibility rather than an assertion".
The judge decided (wrongly, in my opinion) that therapy and equipment, coupled
with the positive effect which future care will have on the Claimant's approach
to life, will diminish the possibility of adding to the current care package,
and he decided that the future cost of care should be based on current costs.
He preferred the evidence of Mrs Sargent to that of Mrs Grindley on the issue
of the correct current cost of care. He said that Mrs Grindley's contention that
a fixed daily/weekly rate could be negotiated with either CPA or another care
provider at a considerably lower cost than the current care provision failed to
give proper weight to the extent of the care the Claimant requires now that this
partner is no longer assisting. She gave too much weight to the fact that the
Claimant managed in what was a very inadequate care setting (when the Claimant
was reliant upon his partner, whom he knew was having an affair, but whom he could
not separate from due to his need for care).
Earnings
21. Mr Parry's claim was based on the prediction that he would have been promoted to farm
manager within about a year of the date of the accident, and then to area manager. It was our
contention that the Claimant probably would have achieved promotion to area manager.
Award
22. The total award was £3,598,261, from which 15% had to be deducted, leaving
£3,058,521, made up as follows.
Pain, suffering and loss of amenity 165,000
interest 3,461
Past loss 168,142
interest 20,359
Future loss 3,241,297
1 July 2005
BILL BRAITHWAITE Q.C.