On December 12, 2012, at approximately 5.40 pm, my client, Mrs. J. Smith, was involved in a road accident, which forced her to be absent from the work due to the accident a broken back and several major surgeries. The accident was caused by the negligence of your client, Mr. J. Sherwood, who according to Mrs. Smith was driving while "texting on the phone", which resulted in him crashing into her car, as he had not noticed at the red light. In the previous letter I sent, I had specified what the conditions for liability for the crime of negligence were in relation to this case. I will now apply these criteria to the case at hand. Firstly, there is evidence that the perpetrator, Mr Sherwood, owed a duty of care to my client, which he breached. The offender should have driven sensibly, as he is an ordinary person carrying out a task, driving. The first part to check whether a duty of care is owed is foreseeability, and it is clear that it was foreseeable that such an accident would occur, as driving while using a hand-held phone would be classed as careless or dangerous driving, as the person ability to drive would be reduced, due to inattention to the task, which in this case would lead to a road accident, with serious physical and mental damage to the person, including the car itself. The second factor is proximity, which as explained above means how close or proximate the event (timing), space and relationship was. There is no relationship between Mrs Smith and Mr Sherwood, as they were two ordinary people driving on a road. However, the fact of colliding with Mrs Smith's car was immediate in time and space, as was the damage caused by the event. This adds to the fact that Mr Sherwood has a duty of care to my client and has b...... half the paperwork... the costs of these need to be included, as well as prescriptions, physiotherapy etc . non-economic losses, on the other hand, focus on the loss of future earnings and are higher. First of all, the costs of repairing the car would be around £350. The fact that Mrs Smith has been absent from work for such a long period, approximately 6 months, and is estimated to be absent from work for another 6, causes the compensation amount to increase. My client was earning £20,000 a year, which is the amount she will lose. This added to the amount owed for bodily injury amounts to £74,000. My client is likely to recover from this accident and will also be able to continue her work as a teacher, which means that there are currently no other future losses caused by this accident. I've included a screenshot of the website I used to come to this conclusion below.