Personal injury lawyers have had a big win for claimants, who were in an accident and were seeking more compensation for non-whiplash injuries. In the linked cases of Hassam v Rabot, the Supreme Court dismissed insurers' appeal which is a landmark in the ongoing hybrid claims.

The Verdict and Its Implications

The ruling implies that individuals using the Official Injury Claim (OIC) portal for low-value road traffic accident (RTA) claims are now entitled to claim tangible and intangible losses. However, the court has to determine whether some deductions should be made in order not to compensate for the same consequences of an injury twice. The Civil Liability Act 2018 introduced a tariff system for whiplash injuries but none for other injuries. Everyone, including personal injury attorneys in Bellevue, has been looking forward to this, and the Supreme Court has declared that compensation for each injury is recoverable.

Background of the Appeal

The appeal arose from two county court cases in Birkenhead where the district judge ordered two separate assessments and awards of the two injuries. The Supreme Court also adopted the position of the Court of Appeal and emphasized that the principles of common law should be used to determine the compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity in non-tariff cases.

Lord Burrows in the lead judgment pointed out that although the sums in question were not large, they would impact on a thousand cases. According to the OIC data in the last quarter of 2023, 43,159 of the total claims included whiplash and non-whiplash injuries.

Arguments from Both Sides

The insurers argued that ancillary recovery for non-whiplash injuries should only be permitted if it was different from the pain, suffering, and loss of amenity already included in the settlement for whiplash injuries. In contrast, claimants and intervenors suggested that non-whiplash injury should be included in the tariff amount of whiplash injuries, but with a possible deduction of any duplication.

District Judge Hennessy first assessed the whiplash injuries in Rabot at £1,390 and the common law damages for knee injuries at £2,500. Applying the reasonable deduction approach, the total losses were estimated to be £3,100.

Supreme Court’s Rejection of Vos’ Approach

The Supreme Court rejected an idea of Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, who offered a ‘principled’ and ‘scientific’ solution to the cases of concurrent damage. Lord Burrows dismissed this approach as cumbersome and likely to lead to less compensation for litigants who only sought non-whiplash personal injury claims.

Burrows specifically noted in this regard that the adjustment (which here will invariably be a deduction rather than an addition) must at least roughly take account of the fact that there should not be double recovery for the same PSLA.

Reactions and Future Outlook

Sue Brown, chair of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society, which intervened in the case, said she was pleased. ‘While the level of tariff damages is still far from fair, claimants can now be assured of getting fair compensation for the non-whiplash injuries they sustain in low value motor accident claims,’ she noted. Brown also said she was optimistic that justice delivery system would now be able to clear the backlog of cases.

The Roles of Personal Injury Lawyers

This decision underscores the significance of hiring a personal injury attorney Bellevue when seeking compensation as a claimant. This support from the Supreme Court means that the claimants can now pursue adequate compensation for their injuries more confidently. Bellevue personal injury lawyers will have important roles in managing such complex affairs to ensure that the clients receive the deserved compensation.

When the courts are finally getting to hear the cases, the services of a personal injury attorney Bellevue will be very handy in ensuring justice for the victims of motor accidents. This decision not only assists the present claimants but also assists future hybrid injury claims, which underlines the importance of seeking legal advice in such cases.