These proceedings arose as a result of a road traffic accident which occurred on 26th October 2008 at Dunsilly Roundabout, Antrim. Primary liability was accepted but it was disputed that the Plaintiffs had sustained personal injuries as a result. The Defendant described that she had stopped on her approach to Dunsilly roundabout and it was when she was moving off again that she made contact with the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front. The Defendant described the contact between the two vehicles as “very light”. There was no bang and she was not moved in her seat. At the scene she examined both vehicles and neither appeared to be damaged.
The Plaintiffs were two of four occupants of the other vehicle. They both claimed that their vehicle was impacted by the Defendant’s vehicle at a speed of around 30-40mph. One Plaintiff, an 87 year old lady, described that as a result of the impact she was forcibly restrained by her seatbelt and would appear to have been immediately aware of discomfort in the back of her neck and left shoulder area. As a result of the impact she attended for treatment at Antrim Area Hospital, and subsequently with her GP on three or four occasions. She attended for two episodes of physiotherapy, which she thought were making her condition worse. At the time of her medico-legal examination, five months post accident, this Plaintiff described that she was still very uncomfortable in bed at night with a stiff neck, would awaken three times a night and on examination her movements were globally restricted to about 50%. Mr Nolan FRCS felt that a timeframe for recovery was around 8-10 months post accident.
The other Plaintiff was a younger lady, who did not attend at hospital or with her GP as a result of her injuries. Mr Nolan FRCS felt that her recovery would be in the region of around 6 – 8 months post accident.
After evidence had been provided by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant , including Mr Stephen Donaghy, Consulting Engineer, Her Honour Deputy Judge Brownlee was invited by the Plaintiff’s counsel to consider the case of Armstrong v York which was taken from Bingham & Berryman’s textbook. This judgment indicated that where a Plaintiff had given evidence in a transparently truthful way a Judge had agreed to pay regard to this rather than the evidence of an expert witness. Ultimately, however the Judgement noted that it was a matter for the Judge. Her Honour Deputy Judge Brownlee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and held as follows:
These Civil Bills were issued in relation to a minor impact. When there is minor damage there is no indication in relation to whether there was a personal injury or not. In her evidence, the first Plaintiff heard a bang and described how she was moved forwards and described being shunted forwards. She was unsure as to whether the handbrake was on or not. She talked about her experience at the time as did the second Plaintiff who described that there had been a loud bang and she had been moved forward in the car and the car had broken or “burst”. The Defendant stopped behind the car, she had been looking to the right and moved forward and was alerted to the stationary car in front. The Defendant had stated that the first Plaintiff, who was the front seat passenger who did not get out of the vehicle following the collision.
The Judge found find this to be very significant as the first Plaintiff’s view must have been that the incident was so straight-forward that she did not need to get out. The two drivers spoke and the Defendant could find no damage to either vehicle.
Her Honour made reference to the evidence of Mr Donaghy, Consulting Engineer, who carried out an examination of both vehicles some time after the accident. The Defendant had subsequently sold her vehicle post accident but enquiries had been made and the new owner was traced to enable an inspection to take place. The new owner had advised that the vehicle had not been repaired since his ownership and Her Honour held that this hearsay evidence was admissible. She noted that there had been a very full inspection of the vehicles in this case and pictures in front of the Defendants vehicle and the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle have been made available. Her Honour accepted Mr Donaghy’s assessment of the vehicles and she proceeded on the basis that there was no repairs effected to either vehicle. The bumper is described as hollow, flimsy, connected to the car bur not supported in the way of modern vehicles and there has been some corrosion of the bumper of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Her Honour noted that the lights on the Plaintiff’s vehicle were not broken or dislodged. She accepted the evidence that the material on front of the Defendant’s car is significant. If contact is made between the vehicles and the material is nor disrupted then this would suggest that there was insufficient contact. There was no disruption or a bubble effect to this material; further there were no any signs of friction. The conclusion of Mr Donaghy’s evidence was that there was barely even minimal contact between the two vehicles.
Her Honour noted that she had been referred to an authority which essentially says that the decision is ultimately up to Her Honour to decide if she accepted that the Plaintiffs had been injured as a result of this collision. The difficulty for her was of course that the Plaintiffs were saying that they were injured. She noted that she had to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. Her Honour concluded that because of the lack of damage and Mr Donaghy’s evidence she found that there would have been no contact sufficient to carry residual force to disrupt the Plaintiffs in the vehicle. If the Plaintiff suffered injuries, she was not satisfied that this could be attributed to the accident and accordingly dismissed both Civil Bills. The Plaintiffs were legally aided in this action and accordingly the usual order in respect of costs was made.