Man wins £400,000 compensation for cut finger
A mechanic who cut his finger while repairing a police car has won £400,000 in compensation after launching a claim for £1 million compensation for his injuries.
The mechanic was working as a mobile technician for Venson Group when he was called to check an airbag fault in a police car at East London's Limehouse Police Station in September 2002.
As he was inspecting the problem, he sustained cuts to his index and middle fingers when his hand slid along the blade of a knife which had been left wedged between the two front seats.
The victim needed multiple stitches as a result of the injury and had to have his wedding ring cut off his finger. He also had to go for a HIV test, which thankfully proved negative.
Since the accident he developed complex regional pain syndrome, a condition which causes intense pain, often in the arms, legs, hands or feet.
There is no known cure for complex regional pain syndrome, which is often triggered by minor injuries, however half of all sufferers recover spontaneously within a few months. Others can have indefinite, unremitting pain.
As a result of his injuries and consequent suffering from complex regional pain syndrome, the victim had to give up work in 2004, two years after the accident.
The metropolitan police admitted liability for his injuries, however, they disputed the extent of his suffering and accused him of 'wanting to be a millionaire' and of being in search of 'a quick bit of cash'.
To back up their case against the victim, secretly recorded DVDs were produced in court which showed the subject walking his children to school, shopping in a DIY store and shooting an air rifle in a competition.
The victim simply said outside the court: 'I genuinely have not been able to work since the accident. If you wish to know any more you should speak to my lawyer.'
Despite the best efforts of the police and their defence team to discredit the victim, Judge Sir Robert Nelson ruled in favour of the victim and awarded him £400,000 in compensation.
Sir Robert said: “The victim nor his wife had never been wholly dishonest and he had never falsely pretended to have symptoms which do not exist”.
The compensation awarded was considerably less than the £1 million which he had been hoping for,as the judge did concede that the injuries had been exaggerated to some extent.
He said that the father of two had “made a better recovery than either he or his wife describes,” however, he was in no doubt that the victim was left with a “genuine disability with unpredictable symptoms which can flare up at any time".
Sir Robert said that the DVDs were 'a matter of impression,' and added that 'A number of the attacks on the claimant's credibility were without substance.'
He described the claimant as “an anxious man who had lost sight of what he wanted to do.”
The compensation Judge Sir Robert Nelson awarded consisted of £32,000 for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and £368,000 awarded for loss of past and future earnings.
Updated on 01/04/2009