“Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.
-
Upload
griffin-warner -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.
![Page 1: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
“Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal
Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.
![Page 2: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Low Velocity Impact Collisions
No Legal Definition
No Separate Legal Concept
No Separate Legal Principles Applicable
![Page 3: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Typical Case
Low Velocity Impact Collision
Defendant accepting negligent driving
Defendant denying injuries or extent of injuries claimed by Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s medical witnesses supportive of Plaintiff’s contentions re: Injuries
Defendant engineering evidence and/or medical evidence contradict Plaintiff’s contention re: Injuries
![Page 4: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Weight of Engineering Evidence
Not necessarily conclusive
Must be weighed alongside other evidence in the case
Armstrong v York [2005] EWCA 277
“We do not have trial by expert in this country; We have trial by Judge”
![Page 5: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Factors which may enhance weight of engineering evidence
Photos taken at the scene
Photos taken shortly afterwards
Early inspection by motor damage assessor
Early inspection by engineer
Eyewitness evidence, e.g. Defendant driver, emergency services personnel, bystanders
Medical Evidence
![Page 6: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Weight of Medical Evidence
Must be weighed alongside other evidence
Likely to be contested
Interaction with engineering evidence
![Page 7: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Factors which may enhance weight of medical evidence
Information re: Impact
Early medical examination
Medical records pre and post-accident
Other relevant background/history of Plaintiff
![Page 8: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Credibility of Plaintiff
Crucial factor
Detailed Notice for Particulars
Medical Records pre and post-accident
Claims history
Surveillance
![Page 9: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Conclusion 1
No special law applicable to low velocity impact collisions.
Court not obliged to follow expert evidence if there is other credible conflicting evidence.
Expert engineering evidence is of significant importance.
Expert medical evidence also of significant importance - more information medical expert has re circumstances of the accident and the Plaintiff’s medical history the greater will be the medical expert’s ability to give a reliable opinion in the matter.
![Page 10: “Low Velocity Impact Collisions and Personal Injuries Actions” Paul Burns S.C.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022071709/56649cf45503460f949c1973/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Conclusion 2
Defendants are more likely to succeed in defending low velocity impact personal injury claims where a multi faceted approach is adopted e.g. the engineering evidence has been considered by the medical witness in addition to other relevant factors.
Credibility of Plaintiff is crucial and engineering and/or medical evidence important in assessing credibility as regards whether the Plaintiff is faking, exaggerating or misattributing symptoms.