Case Report - McMahon v Rouse

Case Name

McMahon v Rouse

Court Name


Accident Date


Settlement Date





The Claimant was the front seat passenger in a vehicle being lawfully driven along the main carriageway by her partner. The Defendant emerged from a side road at 60 mph and collided with the passenger side of the Claimant's vehicle; the combined impact speed was in the region of 120 mph.

As a result of the collision, the Claimant suffered a Colles type fracture to her right dominant wrist which has ongoing mild stiffness and a serious injury to her right leg. This consisted of a compound, comminute tibial shaft fracture with associated fibula fracture, a Ilizarov frame was applied. There is a significant bowing/ shortening of the leg, the ankle remains stiff and ongoing intrusive symptoms of pain and stiffness/ difficulties on stairs and uneven ground. The leg injury has resulted in visible scarring which has required scar revision surgery.

The Claimant also suffered extensive soft tissue injuries; to include injury to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, requiring physiotherapy treatment; extensive internal and external pain, bruising and swelling to her abdomen from the seatbelt; lacerations to her forehead and extensive bruising around both eyes resulting in a likely possibility of post-concussion syndrome leading to headaches, dizziness and panic attacks, impaired memory and concentration; along with psychological issues requiring extensive CBT treatment. The psychological symptoms consisted of anxiety, low mood and depression, vivid nightmares, passenger and driver anxiety and concerns regarding the scarring to her leg.

The Claimant required a significant amount of care and assistance; particularly in the first few months following the accident and relied on her family for help with all aspects of personal care; meal preparation and lifts to/from appointments.

The Claimant was unable to drive following the accident and incurred travel costs to/from appointments; university and work.

The Claimant also had time off university and work following the accident.

At the point of settlement, the medical evidence was inconclusive and further evidence had been recommended.


The Defendant was prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and the Defendant's insures dealt with the Claimant's claim as she was a passenger. No formal admission of liability was made.


Contrary to instructing solicitors advice the Claimant wished to settle her claim. Negotiations were entered into, resulting in a settlement of £75,000.00 net of £5,500.00 received on account.

Solicitors for the Claimant

Mary Kay of Spencers Solicitors Limited

Insurers for the Defendant

ERS Syndicate Services Limited

How can we help?

Why Choose Spencers Solicitors?

At Spencers Solicitors we are fearlessly committed to our clients and ensuring that their best interests are central to everything we do. To maintain this focus, we request client feedback at the conclusion of every case we handle. By sharing the responses we receive, you'll find out why clients choose Spencers Solicitors to deal with their legal issues.

   4.2 out of 5 following

View Client Feedback

Contact Us Today

Our offices are conveniently located near to Chesterfield town centre & fully equipped with onsite meeting facilities, disabled access and free parking.

  08000 93 00 94

  Drop into our offices

  Online Enquiry