Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A university student left paralyzed after a skydiving accident is suing her for £15million, claiming she should never have been allowed to jump.
Miriam Barker, then 21 and a history and philosophy student at the University of Southampton, joined the skydiving society in early 2018 for her first jump.
despite that parachute After ejecting from the aircraft at 3,500 feet, Ms Barker landed at Dunkeswell Airfield in Devon with extreme force.
The impact caused her to overturn, resulting in severe neck and back fractures and was a “catastrophic” incident. spinal cord injuryThis caused him to become tetraplegic and is now dependent on a wheelchair.
Now Ms Barker, 29, is demanding £15 million compensation To the deep, long-term effects of the accident.
Their claims target jump organizers Skydive Buzz Ltd and university GP Dr Aneela Hafeez.
Ms Barker, who had a history of depression and anxiety, alleges Dr Hafeez wrongly deemed her medically fit to participate in the skydive.
However, both the skydiving company and the doctor are denying fault and fighting the case.
Documents filed at the High Court in London said Ms Barker was meeting a counselor and about to start a course of cognitive behavioral therapy when she decided to join the university’s skydiving society in early 2018.
He underwent intensive parachute training before the expected jump on 22 April.
Areas covered by instructors included “an exercise where students jumped from a chair and rolled on the ground to simulate landing”, safely exiting the aircraft, and activating the emergency chute.
Budding skydivers were also taught about the need to “flare” when getting close to the ground, which involves pulling the chute toggle to slow the descent.
But Ms Barker’s legal team says the chair’s support was inadequate for the task and that trainers should have provided a ramp to “simulate the sensation of forward motion during landing”.
Lawyers say Ms Barker’s landing was too heavy because the skydive buzz instructor also failed to properly “talk” her through radio contact, and failed to warn her in time about the immediate need to flare up.
As a result, she landed hard and rolled forward.
Her barrister, John Kimbell Casey, reported, “She fell heavily onto her knees and face, her neck crushed as her legs were lifted behind her.”
“She remained conscious and felt excruciating pain in her neck and back. She was unable to move her arms or legs.”
Her lawyers say the impact of the fall had devastating consequences for Ms Barker, leaving her in persistent pain. She can now only “walk a few steps in Zimmer under close supervision”.
Casey said, “Due to his injuries he is unable to work. His ability to obtain paid employment and pursue a meaningful career has been seriously impaired.”
Furthermore, the former student alleges that Dr. Hafeez should not have signed her off as mentally fit for skydiving, and that if he had not done so the parachute jump might not have occurred.
Ms Barker had a history of depression and anxiety, and was taking medication, court documents revealed, and as her GP, Dr Hafeez had to sign a form for skydive organizers declaring whether she was “fit to make a solo jump”.
The GP signed off on her, telling her there was “no additional risk”, while Ms Barker’s lawyers say her troubling history should have prompted an “unacceptable risk” statement.
Her lawyers claim that her mental impairment impaired her “ability to concentrate and make effective and timely decisions in a stressful situation”.
Mr Kimbell says his mental condition “caused or contributed to the accident”.
Mr Kimbell argued, “But specifically for the breach of duty… Dr Hafeez would not have certified the claimant as fit to jump, and would instead have certified him as being in the ‘unacceptable risk’ category.”
“That’s why she doesn’t jump and doesn’t get hurt.”
Both Skydive Buzz and Dr. Hafeez deny liability for the accident, with the company insisting that it had conducted careful monitoring as well as extensive training on the day of the jump.
It defends using the chair to simulate rolling as “a perfectly reasonable means of teaching students the techniques necessary for safe landing”.
It also said the trainees received full training in using their radios, and that an instructor was giving her advice by radio when she landed.
“The talk-down instructor calmly reminded him to keep his feet and knees together for landing and flare up,” Tim Horlock of Skydive Buzz, KC, said in court documents.
“That reminder and advice were provided at sufficient altitude and in time to ensure a safe landing, had Ms Barker acted appropriately and calmly.
“However, she landed with her legs apart and without flinching – unlike the tuition.”
As far as Dr. As for Hafeez, the GP accepted that he should have assessed the risk level as “an acceptable additional risk if the trainer was informed”.
However, his lawyers point out that he signed the form two months before Ms Barker’s jump and that their patient should have told Skydive Buzz his full medical history.
In his written defence, Dr Hafeez said it was reasonable to mark Ms Barker as fit to jump when she signed off, as she seemed “much better” and “stable”.
Both the GP and Skydive Buzz dispute liability and say Ms Barker herself was to blame. The company alternatively claims that any blame for the accident should be attributed to Dr. Hafeez.
The case recently came up for hearing in court, with evidence to be presented at a full hearing of Ms Barker’s claim at a later date.