Gemma Parker
Clyde & CoPartner Gemma is based in the large loss and catastrophic injury team in Southampton. Gemma runs her own case load of multi-track personal injury claims in relation to a wide variety of employer’s liability, public liability and motor claims. Gemma handles all aspects of the claims and investigations whether pre-litigated or litigated. Gemma’s experience includes acting for a local charity in relation to claims brought for sub-standard care and acting for insurance companies in relation to multi-car pile ups with complicated liability arguments. Acting in cases where there are issues in relation to vicarious liability, for insurance companies in cases where there are complicated causation arguments and/or acceleration arguments and in cases where there are contribution or recovery claims. Gemma has been successful in having cases discontinued or obtaining substantial reductions in relation to contributory negligence, where appropriate. Gemma regularly receives instructions to act in claims involving intricate psychiatric and chronic pain symptoms, life changing orthopaedic injuries and brain injuries. She is experienced at recoveries where there has been clinical negligence following treatment for primary insured accidents. Gemma also manages a team of lawyers in the catastrophic injury team in Southampton and is responsible for their supervision, development and training. Recent settled cases include: T v H (2020) – The accident was a minor RTA, where the defendant came off his motorbike and the claimant alleged he had to swerve to avoid hitting the defendant causing injuries, there was no actual collision. The case was pleaded initially at £1.3 million as a result of a minor orthopaedic injury which developed into chronic pain. The claimant also alleged he developed alcohol dependency as a result of his psychiatric injuries following the accident. T was a 39 year old man who advanced his claim on the basis that as a result of the pain he would never be able to work again. BLM and the insurer were not convinced by the claimants medical evidence and obtained their own and were able to settle the claim for £85,263.44 (of which £35,263.44 was repayable to the CRU). J v P (2020) – The accident was a public liability claim. The claimant alleged that he slipped on a wet step a he was leaving the Jacuzzi area, after being told by a member of staff the area was closed. He alleged there were no wet floor signs, no sign to warn the area was closed, no hand rail for him to hold to steady himself and that the flooring in the area was not non-slip. As a result the claimant suffered a large tear of his right shoulder rotator cuff which was deemed irreparable. The defendant denied liability. The claimant’s schedule of loss totalled £323,159.43 with some heads of loss, including general damages, still to be confirmed. The evidence was based on the claimant’s assertion that his shoulder injury was permanent, caused entirely by the accident and he was never going to be able to work again. The largest head of loss was £191,829.82 for future care and assistance. The claim was settled on a commercial basis for £25,000 net of CRU (the offer was approximately £39,000 gross). W v N(1) and B(2) – The accident was an employer’s liability claim. The claimant was working for the defendant as a delivery operative. The claimant cut his foot on glass which apparently went through the sole of his shoe during a delivery in the second defendant’s pub. As a result he had to have all of his toes, other than the big toe, amputated. The claimant was wearing his own shoes (not safety boots) at the time of the accident as he alleged he was told he did not need safety boots. He suffers from diabetes and there was clear suggestion in the medical records that he was not fully complying with his medication regime, which may have contributed to his injuries. Liability was denied by both defendants’. Despite the injuries the claim was modest at £35,000. The defendants made a joint global offer (damages and costs) of £30,000 which was accepted by the claimant. The defendant’s split the payment of the offer 50:50.
