James Rowley specializes in Personal Injuries litigation of maximum severity or special interest. 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 a detailed understanding of the law of tort and procedure as applied to personal injury cases, as well as knowledge of the relevant statutory duties and accompanying case law. He 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 undertakes the preparation of 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:
- Brain injury including hemiplegia, blindness and dysexecutive syndrome and where the issue of capacity is borderline
- Spinal injury including paraplegia and tetraplegia, partial and total, and at different levels
- Amputee cases at all levels, including bilateral amputation
- Psychiatric Injury and especially P.T.S.D
- 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
Faisal v Younis & Active Brands [2018] EWHC 1111 (QB)
APPORTIONMENT : BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE : CHILDREN : CONTRIBUTION : COSTS : DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS : FORESEEABILITY : LABELLING : MANUFACTURING : PACKAGING : PERSONAL INJURY : POISONS : SHOPS
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 and ingest from it, the recorder had been entitled to apportion responsibility on the basis that the manufacturer should bear two-thirds and the shopkeeper one-third.
(Represented the successful manufacturer, having admitted liability, in gaining contribution from the shopkeeper).
Dunhill v Burgin
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 his arguments, in the Peter Taylor Memorial Lecture 2014 to the Professional Negligence Bar Association.
Scott and Evans v Griffiths QBD, HHJ Oliver-Jones sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, Lawtel 29/01/2014 - A motorist had taken the precautions a reasonable motorist would have taken in the circumstances before his car struck a pedestrian who had stepped onto 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.
Threlfall v. Hull City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1147 - The court 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".
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 properly employ and train the marshals.
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.
Samantha Roberts v MoD (2006) - Liability and quantum compromised on confidential terms. Sgt Roberts, the 1st 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.
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.
Craven v John Riches et al and Knockhill Racing Circuit [2001] EWCA CIV 375 - 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.
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.
SAMPLE CURRENT CASES
Too numerous to specify. Relevant cases will be supplied on specific request.