Passenger Succeeds in Contested Whiplash Claim

Peter Causton recently represented a passenger in a road traffic accident claim in which the Defendant disputed whether the Claimant had sustained any injury at all.

The Claimant had been travelling as a passenger when the vehicle was involved in a collision. Although the occurrence of the collision itself was not in dispute, the Defendant challenged causation and questioned whether the Claimant had genuinely suffered the whiplash symptoms described.

The Claimant was cross-examined at trial about the circumstances of the accident, the relatively limited vehicle damage, her medical history and aspects of the contemporaneous medical records which the Defendant argued were inconsistent with her account.

It was submitted on the Claimant’s behalf that relatively minor vehicle damage did not, without more, establish that an occupant had not been injured. The court was required to consider the evidence as a whole and determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the Claimant had sustained the injuries claimed.

Following the trial, the court accepted the Claimant as a truthful and straightforward witness and rejected the suggestion that the injuries had been fabricated or exaggerated.

The Claimant recovered more than £1,500 in damages and associated losses, together with more than £5,000 in legal costs and disbursements.

The case illustrates that the appearance of relatively limited vehicle damage is not necessarily determinative of whether an occupant has sustained injury. Ultimately, each claim depends upon the court’s assessment of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses and the available medical evidence.

Peter Causton acted for the Claimant at trial.