Williams v Jervis (Lex Komatsu), Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, October 08, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2346 (QB)
Linked as:
Extract
Williams v Jervis (Lex Komatsu), Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, October 08, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2346 (QB)
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 2346 (QB)
Case No: HQ05X01838IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 08/10/2008Before :MR JUSTICE RODERICK EVANS- - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr Marcus Grant (instructed by Dickinson Solicitors) for the Claimant Mr David Platt (instructed by Halliwells LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 14th April - 7th May 2008- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMr Justice Roderick Evans : 1. Shortly before 1pm on Tuesday 2nd July 2002 a road traffic accident occurred on the Wandsworth Road, London. The claimant, who was driving her Volkswagen Golf motorcar, stopped at a zebra crossing. A Mercedes Vito van owned by Lex Komatsu and driven by their employee Calvin Jervis failed to stop in time and ran into the rear of the claimant's car.2. Miss Williams' car was beyond economic repair and the defendant's insurers paid Miss Williams £6800 which was the full pre-accident value of her car. Primary liability is not in issue although the defence allege that Miss Williams was contributorily negligent in that, firstly, the brake lights on her car were not working at the time of the accident with the result that Mr Jervis was deprived of an important means of observing that her vehicle was slowing down; and, secondly, she was using a handheld telephone as she drove which caused her to be distracted and to stop suddenly. These allegations are denied. 3. Miss Williams claims that, despite the comparatively minor nature of the collision, she has suffered as a consequence of the impact continuing, intrusive and disabling symptoms which have meant that she has not been able to return to her pre-accident employment as a Grade G Nursing Sister in the Intensive Care Unit at St Thomas's Hospital, London.4. Three areas of injury are alleged. Firstly, it is said that Miss Williams suffered a peripheral vestibular lesion in the right ear of which the main consequences are dizziness, loss of balance and fatigue. Secondly, she suffered what is commonly referred to as a whiplash injury which involved damage to the nerve roots or nerve trunks in the left brachial plexus region causing intermittent pins and needles and electric shock type attacks of pain radiating down her left (non-dominant) arm. These symptoms are aggravated by using the arm for lifting or moderately heavy manipulation and by lying on the shoulder. In addition, the claimant experienced for a period exacerbation of a pre-existing underlying mechanical low back condition.5. The third area of alleged damage is the most controversial. The claimant alleges that she suffered an injury to her brain which has left her with impaired cognitive function. She complains of mental fatigue, ballistic anger, impaired short term memory, impaired concentration, impaired ability to multitask, word finding difficulties, reduced alcohol tolerance, noise and bright or flashing light intolerance, disinhibited behaviour, impaired ability to organise and plan, impaired ability to follow conversations, headaches and a degree of personality change. A complaint that she suffered incontinence of urine and faeces as a result of the accident is not persisted in as she now accepts that these symptoms are unrelated to the collision.6. The defence response is that a claim at this level following a modest rear end shunt is nonsense. Although the claimant may have sustained transient problems in her neck and arms (and she had a substantial pre-accident history of problems in this area) any physical problems were either negligible or would have passed by December 2002 - some six months after the accident. In addition, while the defence accept that vestibular impairment was caused by the accident, they say the impairment is mild and the symptoms arising from it would not affect the claimant's work or have any major implications for her lifestyle. Any degree of brain injury is denied.7. The defence case is that the claimant is deliberately exaggerating her symptoms in a determined attempt to secure her financial future and to avoid returning to her pre-accident work which at the time of the accident was causing her unhappiness. Alternatively, it is contended that the claimant has come to believe her own exaggerated account of her symptomology. 8. This relatively minor accident has generated an extraordinary amount of paperwork. In addition to reports from accident reconstruction engineers there are medico-legal reports from experts in a range of disciplines some of whom have produced a multiplicity of reports and/or follow up letters. Other documentation relates to the history of the financial provision the claimant made for herself, material relating to the claimant's employment history and her (sometimes heated) exchanges with the Occupational Health Department of her employers, documents from the Department of Work and Pensions...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
