"This is an example of a case where, on the face of it, it seems the case will be extremely difficult, but on carrying out further investigations a decent outcome can be secured." - Colin Ettinger, solicitor who represented the Claimant.
The Claimant was involved in a road crash on 23 March 2007. The Defendant’s car drove into the Claimant who was a pedestrian.
Due to his severe brain injury, the Claimant has no recollection of the event.
There were no independent witnesses. The only eye witness came from the Defendant himself and his front seat passenger. The Defendant argued that they saw the Claimant on the footpath. He was behaving erratically and then suddenly and without warning, stepped into their path and the Defendant had no opportunity to avoid him.
The Defendant was prosecuted and found guilty of speeding.
The Police carried out an investigation and estimated the speed at about 37 mph in a 30 mph limit.
We obtained our own medical evidence and established that, on balance, the speed was much more, probably nearer 50 mph.
With the use of this technical evidence we were able to undermine the circumstances of the incident as described by the Defendant. The Defendant had denied liability.
They were keen to contest the case all the way to trial. However, when it came to exchange of expert evidence they didn’t disclose the evidence they had obtained and realised that the forensic evidence showed that the version of events set out by their client didn’t hold up.
There was a very real risk that the Claimant would be found substantially at fault and, as a result, Leading Counsel advised that a two-thirds offer on liability was adequate.