A student who was left paralysed after breaking her neck in a university parachute jump is suing for £15million, claiming medics should not have cleared her as fit to take part because she was depressed.
Miriam Barker, now 29, was in her third year at Southampton University studying history and philosophy when a friend persuaded her to join the Skydiving Society.
She tackled her first jump in April 2018 and although her parachute opened correctly, she landed heavily, flipping upside down and fracturing her neck and back on impact.
The accident at Dunkeswell Airfield, in Honiton, Devon, rendered Ms Barker tetraplegic due to the extensive damage caused to her spine.
Ms Barker, who was just 21 at the time and is now wheelchair reliant, is seeking compensation over the long-term effects of the accident on her health.
She has launched legal against against jump organisers Skydive Buzz and Dr Aneela Hafiz, a university GP, who she says wrongly signed her off as medically fit to skydive.
Both parties have denied blame for the tragic accident and are fighting the case in the High Court in London.
Documents state 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.
Picture shows members of the University of Southampton Skydiving Society during a jump in 2017
The former student alleges that Dr Hafiz should not have signed her off as mentally fit to skydive, and 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’.
Ms Barker’s 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.’
Moreover, Ms Barker has alleged that the pre-jump training provided by Skydive Buzz was not adequate.
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.
Picture shows members of the University of Southampton Skydiving Society at Dunkeswell Airfield in Devon in October 2018
But Ms Barker’s legal team say 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’.
They 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 her fall had devastating consequences for Ms Barker, say her lawyers, causing ongoing pain and leaving her so crippled she can 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,’ explained her KC.
Ms Barker’s lawyers say Skydive Buzz was at fault in failing to provide adequate supervision and training, including in getting trainees to practise parachute rolls by jumping from a chair rather than from a specially designed ramp.
Both Skydive Buzz and Dr Hafiz deny liability for the tragic accident, 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’ – also insisting that trainees received full training in using their radios, and that an instructor was advising her by radio as she came in to land.
Dr Aneela Hafiz (pictured) – one of the campus doctors at the University of Southampton
‘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’, but 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 says 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.