Rebecca Scott

完整简历

Rebecca is a Partner in the Casualty & Healthcare team. She is based in our Manchester office and has over 14 years' experience in dealing with personal injury claims. She currently handles cases with a value ranging from £100,000 to £5,000,000. She advises in relation to policy, liability and quantum.  

Rebecca has expertise in a variety of injury types including brain injuries, amputations and chronic pain. She also advises in relation to fatal accidents.

She regularly acts in multi-party actions, with an expertise in construction site accidents.

相关经验

• Regularly instructed by insurers in relation to all aspects of chronic pain including CRPS.
• Successfully achieved discontinuances in both an employers' liability claim where the Claimant suffered a brain injury claim following a fall from height and common law negligence claim where a section of plant fell impacting upon the Claimant's head and causing him to suffer a brain injury as a result.
• Acting on behalf of two major insurers in relation to a complex brain injury claim for a female in her early 20s arising from a road traffic accident.
• Expertise in amputee claims. Rebecca is currently dealing with both lower and upper limb amputation claims.
• Successfully defended the Second Defendant at a 3 day liability Trial in the RCJ in Cockerill v (1) CXK Limited & Anor [2018] EWHC 1155 (QB), the first reported case to consider section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which came into force on 1 October 2013, the date of Ms Cockerill’s accident. 
  
  The First Defendant was the Claimant’s employer, and the Second owner of premises hired out by the First Defendant. There was a 7” drop from the entrance hallway into the kitchen. The Claimant did not notice the step, fell and sustained a fracture to her ankle and went on to develop CRPS. Her claim was pleaded at over £1million. 
  
  It was the Claimant’s case against the Second Defendant more should have been done to warn visitors of the step and the danger it presented, or in the alternative, the door being propped open resulted in the Claimant being unable to see the warning sign on the door, and that in itself was a breach of duty. Post-accident, the Second Defendant made improvements by way of applying additional warning tape to the door and the step but that was not considered relevant when considering if the duty owed to the Claimant under OLA 1957 had been breached.