Accident meaning

Note: As of 1 October 2023, the CPR has been updated to broaden the scope of fixed recoverable costs. These changes apply where the cause of action arises on or after 1 October 2023 (typically the accident date). For the version of Part 45 that applied before 1 October 2023, see: Can more than fixed costs be recovered? London weighting A 12.5% uplift to fixed costs applies if the claimant resides or works, and the instructed solicitor practises, within one of the London areas identified in CPR 45. Other circumstances For direction on other situations where recovery beyond fixed costs may be possible, see Practice Note: Fixed costs in road traffic accident claims. Children Distinct fixed costs apply to infant approval hearings, known as Type C fixed costs. The schedule for fixed costs under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA protocol) appears at Table 10 in CPR PD 45. See Practice Note: Fixed costs in...

The following are some of the features and factors (not all of which will be readily discoverable at a very early stage) to consider when assessing whether a claim is appropriate for the LVI defence: The respective weight of both vehicles: a heavier vehicle striking a lighter one creates a greater impact than a crash between vehicles of comparable weight. Age and design of the vehicle: some models provide better shock absorption, for example with large bumpers. Location of impact: a direct rear-end hit passes more energy than a collision at an angle. Presence of a tow bar: a tow bar channels impact energy through the car, increasing injury risk. Handbrake applied: engaging the handbrake reduces the likelihood of injury. Claimant’s age and sex: females face a higher chance of whiplash, and risk rises with age. A pre-existing medical condition: heightens susceptibility to whiplash injury. Whether the claimant anticipated the impact and braced themselves: bracing diminishes the risk of neck...

The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims Below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents (RTA Small Claims Protocol) is engaged for collisions taking place on or after 31 May 2021. For RTA personal injury matters, the small claims track cap for general damages—covering pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA)—now stands at £5,000, save for exceptions in CPR 26.10 and CPR 26.11. The protocol is intended for situations where a person has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident (including, though not confined to, whiplash) and wishes to pursue compensation, provided the sum claimed for the injury does not exceed £5,000 and the value of the case does not exceed £10,000. It operates for claimants pursuing personal injury compensation from RTAs within these injury and overall value limits. For additional guidance on using the RTA Small Claims Protocol, consult Practice Note: The road traffic accident small claims protocol...

Contributory negligence When the defendant holds primary responsibility for the incident, they may assert that the other party contributed to it. The matters to assess are: which parties were to blame for the incident, and to what extent? in what proportion should damages be allocated, having regard to the comparative responsibilities of those at fault?...

This Flowchart shows the route health and safety cases take in Scotland, moving from investigation, through trial, and onwards to Fatal Accident Inquiries (FAIs). It ought to be considered alongside the following Practice Notes: Fatal Accident Inquiries (FAIs) in Scotland Health and safety investigations in Scotland Prosecution process for health and safety cases in Scotland Sentencing health and safety cases in Scotland ...

Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston [2025] EWHC 3178 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the outcome may catch seasoned credit hire practitioners off guard, it was driven in large part by the precise language of the debarring order in this case. The order confined any future debarring strictly to the question of rate and made no reference to reliance on impecuniosity for the hire period or for any wider purposes; appellant counsel on appeal suggested this flowed from a legacy version of a standard form. Practitioners familiar with credit hire litigation will know that, more often than not, directions orders bar a claimant from reliance on impecuniosity for all purposes following a failure to provide financial disclosure. Even so, the judgment is a clear reminder that the courts will apply the ordinary and natural meaning to the words of any order, and practitioners should take care to verify the exact wording of a debarring order in every case. That is not, however, to suggest the...

Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Stoodley and another [2018] EWHC 2135 (QB), [2018] All ER (D) 79 (Aug) What are the practical implications of the judgment? Two key, practical takeaways arise from this decision. Substantive point: a motor insurer granting cover under a DOC extension is insuring a liability that must be provided for under section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). Consequently, a DOC insurer may function not only as a contractual insurer but also as a hybrid insurer (a contractual insurer whose liability is adjusted by RTA 1988, s 148) or as a statutory insurer under RTA 1988, s 151. This will matter in situations where multiple insurers are involved. Procedural point: claimants who anticipate an adverse ruling cannot sidestep it by discontinuing before judgment and then attempting to re‑litigate the same issue. Where a claimant discontinues in those circumstances, a defendant would be well advised to seek an order setting aside the notice of discontinuance. Whilst the law...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—7 March 2024 In this issue: Clinical negligence Fraud and fundamental dishonesty Damages Case management Costs Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Clinical negligence Administrative Court dismisses appeal in clinical negligence claim The King’s Bench Division Administrative Court (Birmingham), in Chilton v Payne [2024] EWHC 451 (Admin), rejected the appellant’s appeal against an order dismissing her claim for damages against the respondent surgeon for negligence. The case concerned an alleged omission by the respondent to provide, or ensure, sufficient abdominoplasty follow-up and/or aftercare. She maintained, among other grounds, that the judge had erred in fact and in law: (i) in concluding there was no breach of the post-operative duty of care; and (ii) in his treatment of factual causation. On appeal, the court affirmed that the judge was right to find no duty on the respondent to...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

The outcome of most road traffic matters depends on their own circumstances. There are rarely absolute rules. Yet, over the past century, a body of case law has developed that offers useful guidance across many familiar situations. Rulings reached on the facts of individual cases should not be taken as statements of law. Even so, earlier judgments often provide a sound indication of how questions of liability are likely to be decided. Roundabouts Rules 184–190 of the Highway Code explain what drivers should do when approaching, and while negotiating, a roundabout. Motorists must give way to traffic coming from the right unless told otherwise, for example by traffic lights. They should also adapt their speed and road position to suit prevailing traffic conditions. Rule 186 of the Highway Code sets out guidance on correct signalling, but motorists should bear in mind that road users already on a roundabout may not be signalling properly, or at all...

Within this Practice Note, the Road Traffic Act 1988 is abbreviated to RTA 1988. Types of insurer and MIB liability In most claims, a motor insurer will extend complete indemnity to their insured under a valid policy. This signifies that the insurer accepts a contractual responsibility to discharge all damages imposed on the defendant driver. However, where the insured breaches the policy (whether before or after the event), the insurer may, under the contract, avoid liability to the insured. In that event, the insurer owes no duty to indemnify the insured thereafter...

Notification under the Serious Injury Guide Sent by email to [ insert the early notification contact name and email address as listed for each insurer at http://www.seriousinjuryguide.co.uk/ ] Dear [ insert name ] Ref: Accident Client name: Date of birth: [ to be provided in a separate email ] National Insurance number: [ to be provided in a separate email ] We represent [ insert claimant’s name ] who sustained injuries in an incident on [ insert date ] at around [ insert time ], occurring in the course of their employment as [ insert details OR other circumstances ]...

Schedule of loss & dependency in a fatal accident claim [ IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ INSERT ] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ] [ [ Specify division ] ] [ [ Insert location ] DISTRICT REGISTRY ] Claim No: Between AB, Claimant (the Widow and Executrix of the estate of A, deceased) and C Limited, Defendant Note On 2 December 2024 the Lord Chancellor confirmed that the discount rate would move to a positive 0.5%. That positive 0.5% rate takes effect from 11 January 2025. Under Schedule A1 to the Damages Act 1996, later reviews must occur within five years of the end of the previous review, meaning the next review must begin on or before 2 December 2029. The Claimant retains the right to revise, modify or supplement this schedule at any time up to and including trial...

In the COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] OR in the High Court of Justice [ Specify division ] [ Insert location ] District Registry Claim No: Between [ Insert name ] Claimant and [ Insert name ] First Defendant Second Defendant Particulars of claim At all material times, the Claimant was employed as a [ insert job title eg Delivery Driver ] by [ insert employer’s name eg Plant Hire Limited ]. Whilst performing [ his OR her ] duties on [ insert date of accident ], [ he OR she ] was tasked with delivering a power float (‘the float’) to the First Defendant’s premises at [ insert address ]. On the Claimant’s arrival at the premises, the First Defendant informed the Claimant that he planned to remove the float from the lorry using a JCB. The First Defendant further stated that various people on site would assist with this unloading process...

For this Q&A, it is assumed that the claim continues within the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the Protocol). Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the Protocol) Under paragraph 3.1, the Protocol’s objectives are to ensure that: the defendant meets damages and costs through the process prescribed by the Protocol, without the claimant having to issue proceedings; damages are paid within a reasonable period; and the claimant’s legal representative is paid the fixed costs at each relevant stage. Accordingly, the aims do not extend to circumstances in which a defendant may recover costs...