Drafting-C’s claim is for an interim payment in the sum of $ 5000, or such other sum as the Court may think fit, as the C suffered injury in the course of employment due to D’s negligence on 6th November 2002.

DRAFTING

CIVIL ADVOCACY

IN THE STAFFORD COUNTY COURT Claim No ST037750

BETWEEN

JAMES THOMAS BENFIELD                                                       Claimant

                                                   AND

GORDON(SCRAPMETAL)                                                           Defenfant

CLAIMANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT

Liability:

  1. Introduction:

1.1.C’s claim  is for an interim payment in the sum of $ 5000, or such other sum as the Court may think fit, as the C suffered injury in the course of employment due to D’s negligence on 6th November 2002.

1.2. The defendant’s defence in this case that the accident caused or contributed to by the negligence of the claimant: See Defence Paragraph 4.

2.C’s Contention:

C believes that if the claim proceed to trial he will obtain judgment against the Ds without any reduction for fault on his part: See CPR, r 25.7(1)(c).

The decision in Ricci Burns Ltd v. Toole (1989) 1 WLR 993 is confirmed by the wording of CPR, r 25. 7(1) ( c), which says that an interim payment may be made if it is shown that the claimant will obtain judgment ‘…. against the D from whom….’the interim payment is sought.

3.Submission:

3.1. Regarding the issue of torch , the D didn’t provide any torch. The D only mentioned that the main yard could be illuminated by flood lights, but no one showed the C where the switches were located.

3.2. The medical report dated 30/05/03 makes clear that the C has been suffered injury in particular a comminuted fracture to the C’s right upper leg and grazing to his right hand and elbow therefore a true copy has attached to support C’s claim in exhibit JTB1.

3.3. The C has suffered financial losses due to his injury. To support the claim a copy of the Schedule of Past and Future Expenses has attached in exhibit JTB2, which would show the financial losses calculated to 03/07/03.

3.4.The C’s claim was insured with the Trusty General Insurance Co by the D. The insurance company declined to accept the liability and a true copy of the letter from the Insurance company attached in exhibit JTB3.

It is submitted that if this claim proceeds to trial the C would obtain the judgment against the Ds without any reduction for fault on his part.

Therefore, the court would consider an order to be made for the Ds to pay the C the sum of $5000 or such other sum as the court may think fit by way of interim payment.

Quantum:

4. Damages for pain and loss of amenity:

The C has suffered a comminuted fracture of the upper part of his right femur and associated soft tissue injury. Full details of the treatment are set out in Mr Dodhia’s reprot of 30th May 2003.

On the available evidence at present, the D is likely to be recover a sum in the region of $ 9750 for damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity. In order to justify this figure the relevant authorities are given as follows:

a)      Judicial Studies Board Guidelines 6th Edition, Leg Injuries, and Bracket C(1): $ 9360- $14660. The C’s injuries probably fall within the lower end of this bracket.

b)      Weir v. Smith 20-7-94: Kemp & Kemp Para 12-514. General damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity awarded in the sum of $9500 (now worth $11,495)

5. Future Loss:

The C claim for future loss for home decoration and maintenance at the rate of $400 per annum. On the assumption that this is a lifelong one and this head of claim would amount to approximately $9,200 (see-Table 19 Ogden Tables).

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.