0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Heer v Afzal & Zenith Insurance Management Limited, Leeds County Court, 22 June 2005

22 August 2005
The issues

Low Speed Impact – Road Traffic

The facts

The Claimant had a road traffic accident on 22nd February 2004. The Defendant admitted that contact between the vehicles concerned was caused by the First Defendant’s negligence. Liability was denied on the basis that no injury or damage was caused. The Defendant’s case was that the impact was at such a slow speed that the Claimant could not have been injured nor could his vehicle have suffered the damage which he claimed.

The Claimant had said he was thrown forward in his seat when the vehicle was touched and that there was transfer of paint from the Defendant’s vehicle to the Claimants. The Defendant said there was no damage to the Claimant’s vehicle nor had there been any paint transfer. He said the impact was light a light touch of the kerb with the wheels.

The expert evidence was to the effect that the impact was less than 3 miles or 4.8 kilometres per hour.

The evidence of Dr Seer was that he would not expect injury below 6 kilometres per hour.

The decision

The Defendant’s evidence was credible. The Claimant’s evidence was not. The engineering evidence was accepted namely that the speed of the impact did not exceed 4.8 kilometres per hour. Dr Seer’s evidence did not conclude the issue because following Armstrong v First York the Court could find for the Claimant on the issue of sustaining injury despite such expert evidence from the Doctor or another expert. The Claimant was not a truthful witness and was fundamentally unconvincing. He had either successfully mislead his Doctor or was able to rely on an injury from an earlier accident.

Claim dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up