14 passengers in a bus hit from behind at a slow speed had all claimed whiplash injury. The expert had said that the accepted speed required to produce such an injury was a change of 3mph, which would require an impact at 30mph, whereas the evidence suggested that the car had been travelling at no more than 15mph. The judge had found against the existence of the standard (Delta V) referred to. The defendant appealed.
Held: The court was really being asked as to the admissibility of records made by the doctor of statements made to him on examining a claimant. The appellants argued that they were hearsay, but admissible. The appeal was dsmissed.
Judges:
Gross LJ, Mann J, Sir Stephen Sedley
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 2
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Evidence Act 1968, Civil Evidence Act 1995 6(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kearsley v Klarfeld CA 6-Dec-2005
The defendants had suggested three doctors to examine the claimant. The claimants suggested a Dr P to prepare a report, but when asked for his CV instructed him anyway. The defendant’s unqualified motor examiner said the accident had occurred at . .
Cited – North Australian Territory Co v Goldsborough, Mort and Co CA 1893
The court considered the propriety of the cross examination of a witness of the statements of others. The plaintiff company in liquidation, sought rescission of a contract for the purchase of land. In the course of the liquidation and after the . .
Cited – Denton Hall Legal Services and others v Fifield CA 8-Mar-2006
The court gave guidance on the procedures to be adopted to avoid difficulties arising from factual differences between medical experts.
Buxton LJ discussed the status of quotations recorded by the doctor examining a claimant, saying: ‘What the . .
Cited – Lawrenson v Lawrenson and Equity Red Star 12-Jul-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Evidence
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450422