Riley v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, aged 27, was involved in a solo motorcycle accident in July 2015, sustaining fractures to his right femur, tibia, and fibula. He developed compartment syndrome which was treated with delay, resulting in a below-knee amputation of his right leg in August 2015. The Defendant admitted breach of duty regarding the treatment at the hospital and acknowledged that appropriate treatment would have avoided amputation. The trial focused on quantum and unresolved causation issues concerning the Plaintiff's 'but for' condition and the extent of permanent disability. Despite narrowing disputes during trial, several quantum issues remain for determination.

The Plaintiff was discharged in September 2015 and lived with his mother. His relationship at the time ended shortly after the injury; he later formed a new relationship and purchased a bungalow through a personal injury trust. He has experienced complications with his stump, including infections and surgeries, affecting prosthetic use and causing psychological effects such as PTSD. The Plaintiff had educational and employment aspirations interrupted by the injury and has since undertaken limited work and plans further study and employment in IT.

Expert evidence was provided on orthopaedics, rehabilitation, prosthetics, care and occupational therapy, accommodation, psychiatry, and physiotherapy. The court also considered detailed evidence on the Plaintiff's recovery, lifestyle, and future needs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's life expectancy should be reduced due to the amputation and related health factors.
2. The appropriate method for calculating future loss of earnings, including whether to apply the conventional multiplicand/multiplier method or a lump sum (BLAMIRE) approach.
3. The extent of damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity (PSLA) appropriate for the Plaintiff's injuries and circumstances.
4. The quantification of past and future losses including care, case management, therapies, prosthetics, accommodation, transport, and miscellaneous costs.
5. The reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s choices regarding accommodation and vehicle purchases in light of mitigation principles.
6. The calculation of discount factors and multipliers appropriate to the Plaintiff’s disability status and future contingencies.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued for an average life expectancy without reduction, citing lack of reliable evidence to the contrary.
• The Plaintiff contended for a conventional multiplicand/multiplier approach to future loss of earnings, based on likely career progression in IT.
• Claimed damages for PSLA above the middle range of the Judicial College Guidelines due to the Plaintiff’s young age and ongoing difficulties.
• Asserted that the purchase of an adapted bungalow and a new vehicle were reasonable and necessary, supported by expert evidence.
• Claimed comprehensive future care, prosthetic, therapy, and accommodation costs based on expert assessments.
• Contended that the Plaintiff’s mitigation efforts, including rehabilitation and limited employment, were reasonable.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Defendant sought a reduction in life expectancy based on obesity and mobility issues but conceded lack of expertise on life expectancy.
• Argued for a BLAMIRE lump sum approach for future earnings due to uncertainties, proposing loss only up to age 60.
• Contended that the Plaintiff would not have completed a degree or worked full-time to date, minimizing past loss of earnings.
• Disputed the reasonableness of the bungalow and vehicle purchases, suggesting alternative lower-cost options.
• Relied on expert evidence less favorable to the Plaintiff’s claims on care, prosthetics, and accommodation costs, often preferring Defendant’s experts.
• Applied discounts for gratuitous care and argued some claimed costs were ordinary household expenses not attributable to injury.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
WARD v. ALLIES AND MORRISON ARCHITECTS [2012] EWCA Civ 1287	Application of multiplicand/multiplier method for future loss of earnings and burden on claimant to prove likely earnings.	The court followed the principle that multiplicand/multiplier is the normal approach unless no alternative is available, rejecting a BLAMIRE lump sum for the entire future period.
HOUSECROFT v. BURNETT	Discounting care costs to reflect gratuitous care provided by family members.	The court applied a 25% discount to care costs to reflect gratuitous nature consistent with this precedent.
SWIFT v. CARPENTER [2020] EWCA Civ 1295	Calculation of loss for increased capital cost of required adapted accommodation and mitigation principles.	The court accepted the approach allowing recovery of difference in capital cost less reversionary interest and rejected mitigation arguments based on failure to seek partner contributions.
SMITH v. MANCHESTER	Use of lump sum (BLAMIRE) awards in cases of uncertainty regarding future earnings.	The court considered but rejected a full BLAMIRE approach, applying it only to disputed periods and preferring multiplicand/multiplier method overall.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully weighed expert evidence across multiple disciplines to determine the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries, prognosis, and future needs. It accepted the Defendant’s concession that the Plaintiff’s life expectancy should not be reduced in the absence of reliable expert evidence, concluding the Plaintiff has average life expectancy.

On causation and quantum, the court preferred the orthopaedic expert for the Plaintiff over the Defendant’s expert, accepting that without breach the Plaintiff would have had a significant but lesser disability. The court recognized the ongoing and complex nature of the Plaintiff’s stump problems and psychological impact, justifying a damages award above the middle of the guidelines range for PSLA.

Regarding future loss of earnings, the court rejected the Defendant’s BLAMIRE approach for the entire period, finding sufficient evidence to apply the conventional multiplicand/multiplier method, with appropriate discount factors reflecting the Plaintiff’s disability. It noted the Plaintiff’s likely career trajectory in IT and the realistic prospects of part-time and full-time employment with accommodations.

In assessing care, case management, prosthetics, accommodation, and other future losses, the court preferred the Plaintiff’s experts where credible, finding that the Defendant’s reliance on ‘but for’ condition undervalued the Plaintiff’s actual needs. The court allowed for extensive future care, adaptations, and equipment, reflecting the Plaintiff’s progressive disability and aging.

The court rejected the Defendant’s mitigation arguments concerning accommodation contributions from the Plaintiff’s partner, citing relevant case law and the practical realities of the Plaintiff’s family situation. It accepted the purchase of an adapted bungalow and a new vehicle as reasonable and necessary.

Discounts for gratuitous care were applied consistent with authority. The court applied multipliers from recognized tables, adjusted for the Plaintiff’s disability status, and carefully considered contingencies other than mortality.

Disputes over certain physiotherapy recommendations and prosthetic equipment upgrades were resolved in favor of the Plaintiff based on the balance of evidence and expert credibility. Where evidence was equivocal or speculative, the court declined to make awards.

Holding and Implications

The court AWARDED DAMAGES IN THE TOTAL SUM OF £4,676,442 comprising:

• £120,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) plus interest
• £323,426 for past losses including earnings, care, therapies, prosthetics, transport, and accommodation
• £4,232,016 for future losses including earnings, pension loss, care and case management, surgeries, therapies, transport, prosthetics, aids and equipment, accommodation, holiday and shopping costs

The decision directly compensates the Plaintiff for the full range of losses suffered due to the Defendant’s breach of duty, reflecting both immediate and long-term impacts. The court’s approach reaffirms the primacy of detailed expert evidence in quantifying damages and the application of established legal principles on mitigation, discounting, and life expectancy. No novel legal precedent was set, but the judgment provides a comprehensive application of existing authorities to complex personal injury quantum assessment.