A student left paralysed after a university skydiving accident is suing for £15m, claiming she should never have been cleared to jump.
Miriam Barker, then 21 and a history and philosophy student at Southampton University, joined the Skydiving Society in early 2018 for her first jump.
Despite her parachute opening correctly after exiting the plane at 3,500 feet, Ms Barker landed with excessive force at Dunkeswell Airfield in Devon.
The impact caused her to flip, resulting in severe neck and back fractures and a “catastrophic spinal cord injury” that left her tetraplegic and now reliant on a wheelchair.
Now 29, Ms Barker is seeking £15 million in compensation for the profound, long-term effects of the accident.
Her claim targets jump organisers Skydive Buzz Ltd and Dr Aneela Hafiz, a university GP.
Ms Barker, who had a history of depression and anxiety, alleges Dr Hafiz wrongly deemed her medically fit to participate in the skydive.
However, both the skydiving company and the doctor are denying blame and fighting the case.
Documents lodged with London’s High Court say that Ms Barker had been seeing a counsellor and was about to start a course of cognitive behavioural therapy when she decided to join the university’s skydiving society in early 2018.
She undertook intensive parachute training before the projected jump on 22 April.
Areas covered by the instructors included “an exercise where the students jumped off a chair and rolled on the ground to simulate a landing”, exiting the plane safely and activating the emergency chute.
The budding skydivers were also drilled about the need to “flare” when approaching the ground, which involves pulling on the chute’s toggles to slow down the descent.
But Ms Barker’s legal team says the chair prop was inadequate for the task and that instructors should have provided a ramp to “simulate the sensation of forward momentum during landing”.
The lawyers say that Ms Barker’s landing was too heavy because Skydive Buzz instructors also failed to properly “talk her down” by radio contact, and warn her in time about the urgent need to flare.
As a result, she ended up landing heavily and rolling forward.
“She fell heavily onto her knees and face, her neck was compressed as her legs went up behind her,“ her barrister, John Kimbell KC, explained.
“She remained conscious and felt an excruciating pain in her neck and back. She was unable to move her arms or legs.”
The impact of the fall had devastating consequences for Ms Barker, say her lawyers, causing ongoing pain. She can now only “take a few steps in a Zimmer with close supervision”.
“She is unable to work as a result of her injuries. Her ability to secure paid employment and pursue a meaningful career is severely compromised,” her KC said.
On top of that, the former student alleges that Dr Hafiz should not have signed her off as mentally fit to skydive, and that had she not done so the parachute jump would probably not have happened.
Ms Barker had a history of depression and anxiety, and had been taking medication, court documents disclosed, and as her GP, Dr Hafiz had to sign a form for the skydive organisers declaring whether or not she was “fit to do a solo jump”.
The GP signed her off as presenting “no extra risk”, whereas Ms Barker’s lawyers say her troubling history should have prompted an “unacceptable risk” description.
Her lawyers claim that her mental fragility impaired her “ability to concentrate and to perform effective and timely decision making in a stressful situation”.
Her psychiatric condition “thereby caused or contributed to the happening of the accident”, says Mr Kimbell.
“But for the breaches of duty particularised…Dr Hafiz would not have certified the claimant as fit to jump, and would have instead certified her as being in the ‘unacceptable risk’ category,” argued Mr Kimbell.
“She would therefore not have jumped and would not have suffered any injury.“
Both Skydive Buzz and Dr Hafiz deny liability for the ccident, with the company insisting that it delivered comprehensive training, along with careful supervision on the jump day.
It defends using a chair to simulate rolling as “a perfectly reasonable means of teaching students the techniques necessary for safe landing”.
It also says that trainees received full training in using their radios, and that an instructor was advising her by radio as she came in to land.
“The talk-down instructor calmly reminded her to keep her feet and knees together in readiness for landing and to flare,” said Skydive Buzz’s KC, Tim Horlock, in court documents.
“That reminder and advice was provided at a height and time sufficient to have ensured a safe landing, had Ms Barker’s acted appropriately and calmly.
“However, she landed with her legs apart and without flaring – contrary to tuition.”
As for Dr Hafiz, the GP has accepted that she should have assessed the risk level as “acceptable extra risk if instructor is informed”.
However, her lawyers point out that she signed the form two months before Ms Barker’s jump and that her patient should have disclosed her full medical history to Skydive Buzz.
In her written defence, Dr Hafiz said she was justified in passing Ms Barker as fit to jump when she signed her off, as she seemed “markedly improved” and “stable”.
Both the GP and Skydive Buzz dispute liability and say Ms Barker was herself at fault. The company alternatively claims that any blame for the accident should be laid at Dr Hafiz’s door.
The case recently appeared in court for a hearing dealing with the evidence to be adduced at a full trial of Ms Barker’s claim at a later date.
