Mr A worked as a delivery driver, delivering foodstuffs overnight to cafes around the country. On the evening of 30 October 2001 he was driving back down the A1 towards London.

It was raining and the road was wet. Whilst driving at about 65mph on a dual carriageway Mr A lost control of his van. He left the road and collided with a tree. In the impact his leg was traumatically amputated above the ankle. He was discovered some time after the accident and taken to hospital where it was found that his leg would need to be amputated below the knee. He was provided with a prosthetic leg.

The van driven by Mr A was hired by his employer from a national van hire company which was also responsible for servicing it. The van had been disposed of. From the outset, Mr A blamed the tyres, although he wrongly thought there had been a tyre blow out.

Mr A approached Anthony Gold through the National Accident Helpline, having previously instructed another leading personal injury firm who had advised him that they did not consider there was sufficient evidence to pursue his claim. On noting that one of the tyres was recorded as being at exactly the legal minimum tread, we obtained the vehicle's maintenance records.

We then obtained expert evidence that the hire company had a policy of placing tyres with a deeper tread on the front of the vehicle as opposed to the rear. Although it is common error to believe that the deeper tread should be on the front, it is in fact an unsafe practice, as this can cause a vehicle to oversteer and lose control in wet conditions. A national van hire company should have known this.

Throughout the course of the case, the Defendant denied liability, alleging that the accident occurred due to driver error. Proceedings were issued against the employer and we began to prepare for trial. However, 10 days before the trial was about to begin, the Defendant's solicitors told us they wished to make an emergency application to have the trial adjourned. The police report had been sketchy but the police officer had said where he thought he remembered the van as ending up. The Defendant's expert had happened to be passing that stretch of the A1. Upon further investigation he found a different tree, and having searched in the nearby undergrowth located a number plate and other debris believed to belong to the van involved in the accident. This clearly damaged their original case that the accident was down to driver error on a particular stretch of road. We successfully opposed the application to adjourn.

Four days before the trial began, the Defendants made their first offer to Mr A to settle his case for £50,000 plus payment of his benefits and costs. At the same time we made a counter offer to settle for £150,000 plus payment of his benefits and costs. On the evening of the Friday before trial we received a call from the Defendant's solicitors wishing to accept our offer and Mr A accepted the £150,000 settlement.