David Sanderson

Liability

David has extensive experience of dealing with the complex factual and legal issues that frequently arise when seeking to establish liability and causation in PI claims.  His practice involves road traffic, workplace and diverse public liability claims.

Quantum

David’s practice involves the valuation of damages in catastrophic injury claims and grappling with the multifaceted disputes involved, covering in particular:

• Severe and subtle brain injuries
• Complete and incomplete spinal cord injury
• Polytrauma
• Upper and lower limb amputations
• Chronic pain and CRPS
• Psychiatric Injuries

David is an experienced clinical negligence specialist and recent instructions have included claims arising from Gynaecological Surgery, from General Surgery, from Orthopaedic Surgery, from Neonatal Care, from late diagnosis of Thyroid Cancer, from late diagnosis of Urethral Cancer, from late diagnosis of HELLP syndrome, from late diagnosis of Acute Liver Failure and from General Practice.

David frequently represents interested parties at high profile inquests arising from accidents and clinical negligence.  Examples from the past 12 months include acting for the family of Ying Tao (the 26 year old cyclist killed at Bank in July 2015), for the family of Alexia Walenkaki (the 5 year old girl killed on play equipment in Mile End Park), for the family of a 42 year old women who died following a liver transplant and for the Ambulance service where a patient being transported to hospital fell from her wheelchair.

PIBA

PNBA

David is excellent on liability, always has a thorough grasp on quantum and is always available. Chambers & Partners, 2024

He is peerless in his field dealing with complex liability disputes. He stands out by the way he can forensically interpret the evidence in a road traffic case. – Chambers & Partners, 2024

David’s collision reconstruction is really second to none. He is a phenomenal advocate at presenting very complex figures and facts. – Chambers & Partners, 2024

He is the very best when it comes to complex liability disputes. He is excellent at putting everyone at ease and cutting through the complexities of a case. – Chambers & Partners, 2024

David is an exceptional barrister, he has an eye for detail and is rigorous in his approach. – Legal 500, 2024

In the 2023 of Chambers & Partners David is praised for being “A very pleasant individual, but a robust and tenacious advocate.” “He has great attention to detail when considering complex liability issues for claimants. He provides realistic advice but is highly motivated to get the best outcome for vulnerable clients.”

David has incredible forensic ability and is able to do the work of the accident reconstruction expert; determining complex calculations on road traffic cases. – Legal 500, 2023

Technically excellent, totally reliable and efficient. – Chambers and Partners, 2022

David has an authoritative air, yet works in a calm, laid back and collaborative fashion. – Legal 500, 2022

His ability in cross-examinations is out of this world. – Chambers and Partners, 2021

A very pleasant individual, but a robust and tenacious advocate. – Chambers and Partners, 2021

An effective negotiator and a superb trial advocate – The Legal 500, 2021

He’s personable, quick to respond, good with clients and very detail-oriented. The guru on RTA cases and very good on his feet. A formidable opponent. – Chambers and Partners, 2020

He gets great results in roundtable meetings. – The Legal 500, 2019

He has a very good reputation and is an even-handed advocate. – Chambers & Partners, 2019

He is gentle with clients but a real fighter in negotiations, and his analysis of evidence in road traffic liability cases is second to none. – The Legal 500, 2018

An excellent trial and appellate advocate who is easy to work with. Totally reliable and efficient. – Chambers & Partners, 2018

Charming, calm and a brilliant tactician. – Chambers & Partners, 2018

He has excellent analytical skills and robust judgement. – The Legal 500, 2017

He’s first-rate and his advocacy is excellent, judges absolutely love him. – Chambers & Partners, 2017

A formidable advocate in road traffic accident liability disputes. – The Legal 500, 2016

He is very good at mathematics and the forensic side of the cases. He is very good on the technical detail and excellent with calculations for accident reconstruction. – Chambers & Partners, 2016

A formidable advocate who frightens even experienced opponents. – The Legal 500, 2015

David has appeared in the directories for over 10 years and in previous editions has been described as “highly popular”;  “incisive, charming and readily contactable”; “a client favourite due to his extreme user-friendliness, promptness and sharpness … qualities which all contribute to the terrific results he achieves across an array of personal injury, clinical negligence and fatal accident claims”; a “fantastic all-rounder” who is “articulate and robust in court,” bringing a “great sense of authority” to bear; who has won praise for his “excellent client-handling, swift responses and specialist knowledge of his subject”; for his “excellent grasp of personal injury matters” and for his “command of quantum issues.”

Deller v King [2021] EWHC 3398 (QB) Hugh Mercer QC
Liability established against two defendants: a car driver who lost control after a puncture and came a halt stationary across the M5 and a car driver the collided with the stationary car.

Al-Najar v Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2021] 1 WLR 3415 (McCombe LJ, Flaux LJ, Newey LJ)
Liability for a hotel to provide security for its guests against violent criminal intruders

Bonsor v Bio Collectors Ltd [2020] EWHC (Peter Marquand)
Liability for a lorry driver who turned left from Kensington High Street onto a pedestrian who was crossing a side street.

Stark v Lyddon [2020] RTR 5 (Master Davison)
Liability for a car driver who pulls into the path of a speeding motorcycle

Burke v Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 3719 (Tipples J)
An appeal involving the conditions to be imposed upon a party who seeks to change experts

Al-Najar v Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 5953 (Dingemans J)
Liability for a hotel to provide security for its guests against violent criminal intruders

Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2019] ICR 459 (Irwin, Moylan, Asplin LJJ)
An appeal involving the imposition of vicarious liability for an assault by a managing director after a Christmas party

Bennett v Southwell [2013] EWHC 2382 (Griffiths Williams J) –
Liability in a road traffic accident involving disputed expert evidence.

Simmons v Castle [2012] PIQR P22 CA –
An appeal involving the Claimant’s entitlement to provisional damages in which the Court of Appeal set the 10% increase in all future awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

Tavares v Hudson-Rotin [2012] (Globe J) –
Liability in a road traffic accident involving disputed expert evidence.

Smithurst v Sealant Construction [2011] EWCA Civ 1277 –
An appeal involving causation of future losses following a cauda equina.

Micklewright v Surrey County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 922 –
An appeal involving a fatal accident caused by a branch falling from a tree that overhung the highway.

Richardson v Butcher [2010] EWHC 214 (Burnett J) –
Liability in a road traffic accident involving disputed expert evidence.

R v Lane [2009] EWCA Crim 1630 –
Conviction for causing death by dangerous driving quashed on appeal.

Wade v Turffrey [2007] LS Law Medical 352 –
Interim payment principles in catastrophic claims.

Palmese v Reboul [2007] EWHC (McCombe J) –
Causation and quantum arising from brain injury.

Denton Hall v Fifield [2006] Lloyd’s Rep Med 251 –
An appeal on liability for work related upper limb disorder and upon the use of medical records.

Ellis v Royal Surrey County Hospital [2004] EWHC 3510 –
A claim for birth injury (Erb’s Palsy).

Morris v Richards [2004] PIQR Q3 –
An appeal raising issues of causation, remoteness and mitigation in the context of a claim for loss of earnings.

Pearce v Lindfield & others [2003] EWCA Civ 647 –
An appeal raising issues of causation and material contribution after a claimant suffered 3 successive whiplash injuries in separate road traffic accidents.

Simonds v Isle of Wight Council [2003] EWHC 2303 (Gross J) –
An appeal against a finding of liability against a primary school following an accident on swings.

Arneson v Heffey [2002] EWCA Civ 1058 –
An appeal in a road traffic accident where trial judge had failed to analyse the evidence.