|>>|| No. 16095
Mother, 46, left paralysed after being 'catapulted' from super-king sized bed during sex with her partner battles for £1m compensation because the divan was an inch-and-a-half lower on one side
A mother-of-four who was left paralysed after falling from a super-king size bed during sex has launched a legal battle for £1million compensation.
Claire Busby, 46, suffered catastrophic spinal injuries when she fell backwards from her recently delivered double-divan in August 2013. Successful business woman Mrs Busby from Maidenhead said she was in bed naked with her then partner when the bizarre tragedy unfolded.
Mrs Busby, who was left tetraplegic and appeared in court in a wheelchair, claims the bed was missing two vital 'glider' feet when delivered, which created a 4cm difference in the height from one side to another. Mrs Busby, who ran a chain of hairdressing and beauty salons is suing Berkshire Bed Company Ltd - trading as Beds Are Uzzz - claiming the bed was 'defective'.
The salon owner said she was 'performing a sexual act' when she toppled over. 'I was positioned kneeling over him,' she explained, to Judge Barry Cotter QC. 'I was kneeling over him and my right hand was touching him, maybe my left hand was touching his leg. I was half way down the bed.'
The claimant said the 'missing gliders' caused a 'slope from head to foot' which caused her to lose balance as she changed position and she 'catapulted' to the floor. At the time she was attempting to 'swing her legs towards the top of the bed', she told the High Court. 'I span around and put my hand down and then I felt as if I was catapulted off the back of the bed,' she said. 'My head hit the floor and I fell to the side and heard a spring in my body snap.'
Her QC, Winston Hunter, said two missing 'gliders' created a hazardous height difference between the bottom end of the left and right divans. 'At its maximum this difference would be 40mm,' he told the judge. This had the effect of creating 'an enhanced, albeit localised, slope at the edge of the mattress', the barrister argued.
Explaining the dynamics of the accident, he went on: 'She had been performing a sex act and, thereafter, she sat up with the intention of swinging her legs forward underneath her - and lying on her back with feet towards the headboard and her head towards the end of the bed. 'Her case is that, having taken the weight off her body through her buttocks, she lay back with the expectation that the mattress would support the weight of her upper torso and her head and shoulders. However, as she placed her weight through her upper body onto the mattress it failed to support her weight, and she continued moving backwards and downwards. The effect of this movement was that her head and upper torso came off the edge of the bed, and she slid to the floor with the weight of her body and legs rotating into a vertical position and forcing the weight of the same through her neck.'
Message too long. Click here
to view the full text.