Personal Injuries or Death — Measure of Damages
D, aged 23 at the time of the accident on 27 May 1997, sought damages for serious multiple injuries sustained when his motorcycle collided with an articulated lorry driven by W which was straddling both sides of a carriageway as W was performing a right turn manoeuvre into a minor side road. W blamed D for the accident, maintaining that the road ahead was clear when he began to turn right and that D was driving at a speed at which he could not stop safely within his range of vision. D's motorcycle was a 600 cc fitted with a "performance" exhaust which made it more noisy than normal. D had no recollection of events on the day of the accident, but said that his normal speed on the road was 60 mph.
Decision: granting decree, that D had proved W had performed his right hand turn manoeuvre when it was not clear or safe for him to do so. D was not a reliable source of evidence as to how the accident occurred, but the evidence of F, who, at the time of the accident, was standing at her front gate which directly faced the road, chatting to C, that W drove his lorry across the path of D’s oncoming motorcycle was unshakable, and the fact she did not think the speed of the motorcycle was excessive was not challenged in cross examination. W had failed to prove excessive speed on D's part and while he may have exceeded 60 mph when overtaking the cars on the straight stretch of road before the gradual left hand bend leading to the locus of the accident, W had failed to prove such speed was excessive or in any way inappropriate. Further, C's assessment of D's speed was based largely on the noise of the motorcycle which an unreliable indicator was given the performance exhaust system. In any event, W had further failed to prove a causal connection between D's speed and either the occurrence of the collision or the severity of his injuries. Agreed damages of inter alia £80,000 for solatium; £80,000 for past wage loss (both awards with interest to the date of decree); £400,000 for future wage loss; £35,000 for pension loss; and £90,000 for past and future services, with interest to me date of decree where relevant, were awarded.
Decision: granting decree, that D had proved W had performed his right hand turn manoeuvre when it was not clear or safe for him to do so. D was not a reliable source of evidence as to how the accident occurred, but the evidence of F, who, at the time of the accident, was standing at her front gate which directly faced the road, chatting to C, that W drove his lorry across the path of D’s oncoming motorcycle was unshakable, and the fact she did not think the speed of the motorcycle was excessive was not challenged in cross examination. W had failed to prove excessive speed on D's part and while he may have exceeded 60 mph when overtaking the cars on the straight stretch of road before the gradual left hand bend leading to the locus of the accident, W had failed to prove such speed was excessive or in any way inappropriate. Further, C's assessment of D's speed was based largely on the noise of the motorcycle which an unreliable indicator was given the performance exhaust system. In any event, W had further failed to prove a causal connection between D's speed and either the occurrence of the collision or the severity of his injuries. Agreed damages of inter alia £80,000 for solatium; £80,000 for past wage loss (both awards with interest to the date of decree); £400,000 for future wage loss; £35,000 for pension loss; and £90,000 for past and future services, with interest to me date of decree where relevant, were awarded.
Labels: Road Accident Claims, UK
| posted by Quantum Claims at 2:51 AM |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home