Young woman’s dream ‘destroyed’ in accident

Katie Ward, who was doing work experience with an architects firm when her finger was sliced off by an unguarded circular saw, is at the centre of a test case in which three of the country’s most senior judges are being asked to define what is meant by “disability”.

Her finger, sliced off during her second day with London-based Allies & Morrison, was re-attached by surgeons, but she says her chances of a career in the highly competitive field of model making for film and theatre have been dashed as a result.

The 28-year-old, was awarded around £80,000 damages at Coventry County Court in April last year, but her lawyers are now arguing at London’s Appeal Court that this was nowhere near enough for the devastating impact on her future.

They say she should have received nearly £280,000.

Miss Ward graduated with a first class honours degree in model making and her ambition was to pursue a career making sets and props for film and theatre.

But after the accident Miss Ward was left with reduced function in her left hand and her lawyers said the re-attached finger was “more hindrance than help”.

She also continues to suffer pain in her left hand and post-traumatic stress disorder, which has affected her ability to work with machinery.

During the hearing at the county court, Miss Ward told Judge Anthony Cleary she was “embarrassed” by a sculpture she created after her accident.

But Judge Cleary said: “From the evidence which has been put before me, I am unable to find that this young woman, either as a matter of fact or law, fulfils the criteria of a disabled person.”

The judge said Miss Ward was an “ambitious young woman” who is “highly artistic”.

But he said a career in model making was “simply beyond” her because she had lost motivation due to the accident and was now “far behind the pack”.

However, he found she could earn at least as much in another field as she would have earned as a freelance model maker.

In response Miss Ward’s barrister, Theodore Huckle QC, said: “The judge appears to have wrongly concluded that, because the claimant can still do things, including with her injured hand, and because she can continue to do things by avoiding use of that hand, then she is not to be regarded as ‘disabled.”

Mr Huckle also said the judge should have found that his client’s ongoing phobia of machinery is a further disability and that, had he found she was disabled, her loss of future earnings would have been calculated differently.

Lord Justice Aikens, sitting with Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Richard Buxton, have reserved giving judgment on the case until a later date.