SUCCESS IN DEFENDING MOTOR CLAIMS
Langleys successfully represented the Defendants in an alleged road traffic accident claim. The Claimant brought proceedings against the Defendant for personal injury and repairs to his vehicle as a result of a road traffic accident.
The Claimant alleged that the Defendant driver had collided with his vehicle whilst trying to change lanes. The Defendant driver agreed there was an accident with the Claimant but disputed any liability and stated that it had occurred at a different location. The location was verified by a letter from the Cleveland Police and this was not where the Claimant alleged it occurred.
The Claimant alleged the Defendant driver had collided with the rear offside of his vehicle and was claiming the total loss value of his vehicle, yet photographs provided showed damage to the Claimant’s offside door and offside front. The Defendant driver recalled that the offside door of claimant’s car hit nearside front wheel arch of Defendant’s vehicle in line with the damage shown on the photographs.
The Claimant’s medical report confirmed that the Claimant had suffered a whiplash injury which solely related to this accident with recovery expected in 10 months. Rather curiously, however, the Claimant’s expert referred to the accident occurring on a date prior to the accident.
Medical records confirmed that the Claimant attended his GP regarding a whiplash injury suffered on the date of the accident. However he also had a previous RTA some 14 days prior to that accident in which he suffered a whiplash injury and which was not mentioned in the medical expert’s report.
Part 18 questions were put to the Claimant regarding the discrepancies in his evidence and any previous accidents, and questions put to the medical expert. The medical expert amended his evidence to say that the first accident would have been 50% attributable to the Claimant’s symptoms claimed.
Replies to the Part 18 questions and the Claimant’s witness evidence were not received by the Defendant solicitors until three days before trial. The Claimant confirmed that he had a previous accident for which he received compensation for whiplash. The Defendant asked the Claimant to discontinue his claim on the basis of the discrepancies.
The Defendant made an Application to strike out the claim due to a failure to comply with the Court directions. However the Claimant’s evidence was allowed after an apology from the Claimant’s Solicitors for their poor preparation.
At trial the Claimant blamed the discrepancies in his own evidence and the failure to inform the medical expert about his previous accident on a language barrier. This was not accepted by the Judge. The Defendant’s driver was found to be an honest and credible witness whose evidence was consistent throughout and the Judge ordered that the Claimant’s claim be dismissed.
This claim was one person’s word against the other which always poses an element of risk, however, when presented with features of inconsistent evidence, consideration should be given to defending such cases to Court. When appropriate Defendant’s should seize the opportunity to take a stand against Claimant’s solicitors whose conduct regularly goes against the spirit of the CPR.
Emma Massey
Legal Executive
Motor Unit