James Rowley specialises in Personal Injuries litigation of maximum severity or special interest. He works for claimants and insurers. His breadth of experience allows him to cover the entire spectrum of cases. An understanding of medical/expert evidence, numeracy and attention to detail in paperwork maximizes his client's position.
James has covered cases on liability involving almost every conceivable type of personal injury claim including:
- accidents on the roads
- accidents on construction sites, in factories and involving occupiers’ liability
- military accidents in training (including SAS selection in the Brecon Beacons) and disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan
- sporting injuries
- injuries arising out of faulty consumer goods
On the quantification and settlement of claims, James takes an active role in choosing and leading the team; he drafts detailed Statements of Case, Schedules and Counter Schedules himself in heavy actions; he knows the ins and outs of early pathfinder JSMs and how to guide a case towards its best tactical resolution. He has particular experience in cases of:
- Serious brain injuries and where the issue of capacity is borderline
- Spinal injuries at all levels
- Amputee cases at all levels, including bilateral amputation
- Psychiatric injury and especially PTSD
- PPOs for overseas residents including Brazil and Australia
- Reverse indemnity agreements / abatement clauses from PPO orders in respect of statutory funding to the benefit of both claimant and insurer
- Reduced expectation of life and the medical literature associated with its evaluation
REPORTED CASES
Moreira v Moran (t/a ACH Joinery and Building Contractors [2021] EWHC 1800 (QB)
Two self-employed builders were equally liable for the brain injury sustained by a labourer who fell from a mezzanine onto a concrete floor. Their negligence in failing to provide a safe place and system of work had caused his accident. In the circumstances, the owner of the premises had not breached its common duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2 and was not liable. (Represented the successful occupier of the premises.)
Faisal v Younis & Active Brands [2018] EWHC 1111 (QB)
On appeal in a case where a two-year-old child, accompanying his mother to a convenience store, had been able to open a bottle of caustic soda with faulty top and ingest from it, the Recorder had been entitled to apportion responsibility on the basis that the bottle manufacturer should bear two-thirds and the shopkeeper one-third for displaying hazardous goods at pushchair height.
(Represented the successful manufacturer, having admitted liability, in gaining contribution from the shopkeeper.)
Dunhill v Burgin [2014] 1 WLR 933, [2012] EWHC 3163 (QB), [2012] EWCA Civ 397, [2011] EWHC 464 (QB)
A litigant's capacity to conduct proceedings was to be judged on the basis of the claim which she actually had, not on the basis of the claim as formulated by her lawyers. CPR Pt 21 invalidated a consent judgment involving a protected party where it had been reached without the appointment of a litigation friend and court approval, even where the individual's lack of capacity had been unknown at the time of the compromise.
"There was much more to the defendant's arguments than this, and they were made with conspicuous learning and skill. It was certainly not counsel's fault that we rejected them." - Baroness Hale, after summarizing James' arguments before the Supreme Court, in the Peter Taylor Memorial Lecture 2014 to the Professional Negligence Bar Association.
Scott and Evans v Griffiths 2014 WL 16579 - A motorist had taken the precautions a reasonable motorist would have taken in the circumstances before his car struck a pedestrian who had stepped on to the carriageway. He had reacted to the presence of the pedestrian at the side of the road by taking his foot off the accelerator and steering towards the centre of the road; there had been insufficient time to brake and, consequently, no breach of his duty of care in failing to brake. (Represented the successful motorist.)
Threlfall v Hull City Council [2011] ICR 209 - The Court of Appeal gave guidance about the correct approach to the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 reg.4 and reg.6, with particular emphasis on how to determine whether personal protective equipment was "suitable". (Represented the claimant on the successful appeal.)
Stanley v Bryn Close t/a Armthorpe Moto Parc [2009] EWHC 2849 (QB) - The court determined that a motor track operator was both vicariously and directly liable for the actions of one of its track marshals, following a collision between two motorcyclists, as it had failed to employ and train the marshals properly. (Represented the successful claimant.)
The Kajaki Dam Disaster v MoD (2008) - Liability compromised on confidential terms between a section of 3PARA losing limbs and life in a minefield in Afghanistan in 2006. Chinook rescue helicopter attempted to land, the downwash causing further detonations. Issues on liability involving combat immunity and the duty of care; resources; practicalities; military planning and deployment of proper aircraft in Medevac. (Represented the family of Cpl. Mark Wright GC at the Inquest, when he questioned the Surgeon General on the lack of provision of suitable Medevac and rescue helicopters, and the survivors on liability issues in the civil actions.)
Samantha Roberts v MoD (2006) - Liability and quantum compromised on confidential terms. Sgt Roberts, the first British casualty of the 2nd Gulf War, was shot and killed by his own side having given up his body armour, which was in short supply and would have saved his life. Issues involving combat immunity and the duty of care; political constraints on the open purchase of equipment in the run up to the declaration of hostilities while UN Inspection Teams were still in Iraq; deficiencies in training in the firing of the coaxial machine gun of the Challenger 2 tank. (Represented the Widow at the inquest, where he unlocked the cooperation of the MoD in providing sensitive evidence by applying for a witness summons in respect of the Secretary of State for Defence, and in the civil action.)
In the PTSD Group Actions - Multiple Claimants v MOD [2003] EWHC 1134 (QB) - Ministry not generally in systemic breach in the past when the risk of chronic/delayed PTSD was thought to be low. Ministry immune under Statute prior to 1987 and with continuing Common Law combat immunity as widely defined. However, 4 of the 14 Lead Claimants established liability (subject to statutory immunity in early cases) for Bolam breaches in their care after combat. CBT and drug therapy found to be effective in the treatment of PTSD. (Senior Junior for the claimants, who were unsuccessful on generic breach issues but successful on generic causation issues.)
Craven v John Riches et al and Knockhill Racing Circuit [2001] EWCA CIV 375 – On a track day, the respondents had been negligent by allowing riders of motorcycles travelling at high speeds to be on the race track at the same time as riders travelling at slow speeds. (Junior for the claimant, who lost at first instance but succeeded on appeal.)
Jebson v MOD [2000] 1 W.L.R. 2055, I.C.R. 1220 CA - "Ministry liable for injury after night out" - where an obligation of care was implied or assumed in respect of a person who was likely to be drunk, that liability could not be avoided because the person was inebriated. (Represented the claimant, who lost at first instance but succeeded on appeal.)
SAMPLE CURRENT CASES
Too numerous to specify. Relevant cases will be supplied on specific request.