Angela Ritchie v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust: widow barred from fatal accident claim after husband's lifetime settlement

The County Court at Wolverhampton has ruled that a widow cannot pursue a clinical negligence claim against an NHS trust following her husband's death, on the basis that his earlier lifetime settlement with a separate tortfeasor already provided full satisfaction for the harm he suffered.

In Angela Ritchie v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2026] EWCC 50, His Honour Judge Grimshaw entered summary judgement for the defendant trust, resolving what he described as a question of whether a claimant who settles a personal injury claim during their lifetime thereby prevents dependants from later bringing a clinical negligence claim against a concurrent tortfeasor after death.

The claimant, Angela Ritchie, brought proceedings following the death of her husband Brian Ritchie, who had contracted Mycobacterium Chimaera (MC) endocarditis, believed to have originated from a contaminated heater cooler unit used during heart valve surgery at the defendant's hospital in 2015. Before his death in October 2022, Mr Ritchie settled a product liability claim against the unit's manufacturer for £250,000 plus costs, following a schedule of loss that had claimed almost £347,000 and had explicitly factored in a reduced life expectancy. Mrs Ritchie subsequently brought a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, alleging that failings in the trust's care had shortened her husband's life by a further two years and worsened his suffering.

The trust applied to strike out the claim or for summary judgement, arguing that established authority, principally Thompson v Arnold, Jameson v Central Electricity Generating Board and Heaton v AXA Equity & Law, prevented dependants from recovering under the 1976 Act where the deceased had already achieved full satisfaction of the same loss through an earlier settlement.

Judge Grimshaw held that he was bound by that line of authority. Where a claimant settles a claim during their lifetime for damage subsequently found to be fatal, their dependants have no right of action under the Fatal Accidents Act, reflecting principles traceable to the nineteenth century case of Read v Great Eastern Railway. He rejected the claimant's submission that this position was unfair or that the relevant authorities had been wrongly decided, noting that any such argument was a matter for a higher court, not the County Court.

Turning to whether the earlier settlement in fact represented full satisfaction, the judge examined the settlement agreement and the schedule of loss served against the manufacturer in detail. He found that the schedule had encompassed the full period of the deceased's illness, included a lost years claim reflecting a seven year reduction in life expectancy, which already subsumed the two years now alleged to have been lost due to the trust's failings, and expressly excluded any further claim under the Fatal Accidents Act or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. There had been no discount applied for litigation risk or contributory negligence, distinguishing the case from earlier authorities such as Wright v Barts Health NHS Trust where such discounts had left room for a further claim.

The judge was not persuaded that the family's lack of awareness of the trust's alleged failings until after an inquest altered the position, finding on the evidence that both the claimant and her husband had some knowledge of concerns about his care before his death. Concluding that the deceased had achieved full satisfaction for his loss during his lifetime, and that further recovery against the trust would amount to double recovery, Judge Grimshaw held that an essential element of the claim, recoverable damage, was missing, and entered summary judgement dismissing the claim in its entirety.