Artist sues London stolen moped rider for £33.6m in one of Britain’s biggest ever personal injury cases: Claims that being run over stopped him earning millions by painting an extra 14 masterpieces every year
- Canadian Manuel Mathieu, 35, is suing Briton Tony Hinds and insurers Aviva plc
- He was struck by stolen moped while studying an art masters in London in 2015
- He is claiming £33.6m in lost earnings due to injuries which impact his work rate
- Artist also fears he could develop dementia, stopping him working in latter years
A successful artist is seeking £33.6million in damages claiming he now paints too slowly after being run over by a stolen moped in central London – preventing him from creating 14 extra masterpieces per year.
Canadian Manuel Mathieu, 35, is bringing one of the biggest ever personal injury claims to the UK courts after he was hit by the vehicle, driven by Briton Tony Hinds, while studying for an art masters at Goldsmith College in November 2015.
Montreal-based Mr Mathieu, whose pieces have drawn comparisons with the legendary Francis Bacon, was left brain-damaged after the accident but recovered to forge a successful career in contemporary art.
But he is now suing Mr Hinds and insurers Aviva for lost earnings, claiming his injuries left him with chronic fatigue and headaches, arguing that had he not been struck, he would have been able to paint more quickly and would have made millions more by producing an extra 14 paintings per year.
The painter also claims his head injuries could lead to dementia in the long-term, hampering his ability to work into his latter years.
However lawyers for Aviva at the High Court in London today branded the claim ‘extraordinary’ and ‘overstated’, and suggested the collision had actually helped Mr Mathieu’s career, citing interviews in which the artist discussed the ‘positive impact of the accident’ which ‘influenced his subject matter.’
Canadian Manuel Mathieu (pictured), 35, is bringing one of the biggest ever personal injury claims to the UK courts after he was hit by the vehicle, driven by Briton Tony Hinds, while studying for an art masters at Goldsmith College in November 2015
They also argued that he often fails to sell a ‘sizeable portion’ of his work at events, undermining his claim that he could sell more works every year.
And while not disputing some liability, they are challenging the amount of the payout demanded, arguing the claim is ‘inflated’ and ‘based on hypothetical guess work’.
Mr Mathieu’s abstract figurative works have been exhibited in Canada and internationally, as well as at London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts.
Opening the case today, Theo Huckel QC, for Mr Mathieu, said Mathieu’s stellar career had been badly impacted by his head injury, which has slowed down his work rate and his ability to turn out a steady volume of paintings.
Although still a successful artist, the accident caused problems with chronic fatigue and loss of concentration, making him far less prolific than he would have been, the QC said.
Mr Huckle told the court Mr Matthieu is suing ‘on the basis that his productivity as an artist has been reduced due to chronic cognitive fatigue and headache caused by his agreed severe brain injury’.
Lawyers for Aviva at the High Court in London today suggested the collision had actually helped Mr Mathieu’s career, citing interviews in which the artist discussed the ‘positive impact of the accident’ which ‘influenced his subject matter.’ (Pictured: Artwork by Manuel Mathieu)
He would have been churning out 14 more works a year had it not been for the accident, he said.
But Marcus Dignum – QC for insurers Aviva Plc – countered by labelling Mr Mathieu’s compensation claim ‘inflated’ and out of proportion to the impact of the crash – even claiming that the accident had helped his career.
‘This is an extraordinary claim for more than £33 million in respect of an alleged shortfall in the production of paintings,’ he told the court.
‘It is based on hypothetical guess work and has no sound evidential basis.
‘Indeed, in all the disclosure to which it has given rise, the vast amount of which was opposed by Mr Mathieu, there is not one document that evidences any such shortfall.
‘Never has Mr Mathieu been unable to produce that which he was required to by his gallerists or clients and a sizeable proportion of his work goes unsold in any event.
‘Indeed, his evidence is that he has always met deadlines and produced sufficient work for exhibitions.’
The barrister accepted that Mr Mathieu’s accident caused a brain injury resulting in ‘some permanent deficits’.
But the artist had made an ‘impressive recovery’ which allowed him to claw back his career, said Mr Dignum.
Mr Mathieu’s abstract figurative works have been exhibited in Canada and internationally, as well as at London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts. (Pictured: Artwork by Manuel Mathieu)
There was no question of him being ‘disabled’, and the true value of his case was ‘at best, a fraction of what has been claimed’, he argued.
Nor did Mr Mathieu claim that his ‘star shines less bright’ due to the catastrophe, argued Mr Dignum – having even mentioned during interviews that the trauma of the accident had helped his creative spark.
‘Mr Mathieu has given several interviews in which he speaks of the positive impact of the accident on his development as an artist and how it influenced his subject matter, which was then greeted with acclaim,’ he said.
Mr Mathieu’s claim for future loss of earnings based on the impact of the accident was too speculative, he argued.
‘History is littered with artists who burned brightly for a period before fading into relative obscurity and successful as Mr Mathieu is, he still falls well short of the elite,’ he told the judge, Mrs Justice Hill.
The insurers also argued that Mr Mathieu’s fatigue was caused by ‘lifestyle factors rather than the brain injury’ and his headaches by a failure to ‘seek appropriate prescribed medication’.
The case is one of the biggest personal injury claims in UK legal history – with the largest payout thought to be £37m won by a six-year-old boy who had been left severely disabled from birth.
Mrs Justice Hill is considering arguments at a High Court trial in London due to last about two weeks.
The trial continues.
Source: Read Full Article