Alexander Lindsay V. William Walker
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff D. Kelly |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 15 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | A1498/2006 |
| Published date | 01 August 2007 |
SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS AT LINLITHGOW
A1498/2006
NOTE
by
SHERIFF DANIEL KELLY
in the cause
ALEXANDER LINDSAY
Pursuer
against
WILLIAM WALKER
Defender
___________
Act: Hare, Gildeas, Glasgow;
Alt: Keenan, DLA Piper Scotland LLP, Edinburgh.
____________________________
LINLITHGOW: 15 June 2007
The Sheriff finds in fact:
1. The pursuer is aged 52. He is a self-employed mechanic.
2. On 12 December 2005 the pursuer was driving his car, registered number J163 GAS, when it was in collision with the car being driven by the defender, registered number X281 CND, at a roundabout on West Main Street, Uphall, West Lothian. The pursuer's car was struck from the rear nearside and was spun round 360 degrees. There was substantial damage to the car. The pursuer was wearing a seat-belt. He bumped his head off the door-post and his left knee struck the dashboard. The defender admits liability for the accident.
3. As a result of the accident the pursuer sustained a soft tissue injury to his neck from a whiplash type distortion. The symptoms associated with the neck injury persisted until the end of February 2006, a period of about two and a half months. The pursuer suffered a soft tissue injury to his lower back in the form of a strain or sprain. The related symptoms continued until July 2006, some seven and a half months after the accident. He also suffered a soft tissue injury to his left knee in the form of bruising. The bruising over the left knee resolved over four weeks.
4. On 13 December 2005 the pursuer had problems with his vision, which was described as "fuzzy", had pain in his left leg, a stiff neck and lower back pain. On 14 December 2005 he attended at Howden Health Centre, where he was sent to St John's Hospital at Howden. He was suffering from pain in his right shoulder, dizziness and feeling "fuzzy". On 22 December 2005 his symptoms were noted on a G.P Physiotherapy Referral Form as parasthesiae in the right hand, neck pain, stiff neck, neck strain with cervical root irritation and disturbed sleep. Between 5 January and 3 April 2006 the pursuer attended 10 physiotherapy sessions and one back education session.
5. The pursuer was off work until the beginning of March 2006, some two and a half months. He then worked from about 10 am until 4 pm. In July 2006 he resumed his normal hours of work, which were from 8 am until 6.30 or 7 pm for five or six days per week. He was also restricted in his gardening, about the house, shopping, cycling and flying.
6. On 22 January 2006 the pursuer went for a 30-mile cycle run. On 18 February 2006 he went for an 80-mile cycle run. In the week beginning 13 March 2006 the pursuer worked two 16-hour days doing very physical work.
Finds in fact and law:
1. The accident in which the pursuer was involved was caused by the fault and negligence of the defender.
2. The pursuer, having suffered an injury through the fault and negligence of the defender, is entitled to reparation therefor.
The Sheriff:
1. sustains pleas-in-law 1 and 2 for the pursuers to the extent of the sum awarded;
2. repels the third plea-in-law for the defender save in relation to the extent of the sum awarded;
3. finds the pursuer entitled to £2,650 with interest at eight per cent per year from the date hereof until payment;
4. certifies David Steedman, Consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine and Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and Michael McMaster, Consultant Orthopaedic and Spine Surgeon, Murrayfield Hospital, Edinburgh, as expert witnesses; and
5. appoints 31 July 2007 at 10.00 am as a date for a Hearing on expenses.
__________________
D. K.
NOTE
Introduction[1] This case involved a claim for reparation arising out of a road traffic accident. It called for Proof at Linlithgow Sheriff Court on 5 June 2007. I heard the evidence of the pursuer, of David Steedman, Consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine and Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and of Michael McMaster, Consultant Orthopaedic and Spine Surgeon, Murrayfield Hospital, Edinburgh.
Agreed evidence[2] Liability was admitted on Record.
[3] The pursuer is aged 52. He is a self-employed mechanic.
[4] It was not in dispute that on 12 December 2005 the pursuer was driving his car, registered number J163 GAS, when it was in collision with the car being driven by the defender, registered number X281 CND, at a roundabout on West Main Street, Uphall, West Lothian. The pursuer's car was struck from the rear nearside and span around 360 degrees. There was substantial damage to the car. The pursuer was wearing a seat-belt. He bumped his head off the door-post and his left knee struck the dashboard.
[5] As a result of the accident the pursuer sustained a soft tissue injury to his neck from a whiplash type distortion and a soft tissue injury to his left knee in the form of bruising. The symptoms associated with the neck injury persisted until the end of February 2006, about two and a half months. The bruising over the left knee resolved over four weeks.
[6] On 13 December 2005 the pursuer had problems with his vision, which was described as "fuzzy", had pain in his left leg, a stiff neck and lower back pain. On 14 December 2005 he attended at Howden Health Centre, where he was sent to St John's Hospital at Howden. He was suffering from pain in his right shoulder, dizziness and feeling "fuzzy". On 22 December 2005 his symptoms were noted on a G.P Physiotherapy Referral Form as parasthesiae (pins and needles) in the right hand, neck pain, stiff neck, neck strain with cervical root irritation and disturbed sleep. Between 5 January and 3 April 2006 the pursuer attended 10 physiotherapy sessions and one back education session.
[7] The pursuer was off work until the beginning of March 2006, some two and a half months. £4,000 has already been paid by way of loss of earnings, the period covered not being disclosed. He was also restricted in his gardening, about the house, shopping, cycling and flying.
[8] On 22 January 2006 the pursuer went for a 30-mile cycle run. On 18 February 2006 he went for an 80-mile cycle run. In the week beginning 13 March 2006 the pursuer worked two 16-hour days doing very physical work.
Disputed issues The calf injury[9] In January 2006 the pursuer developed calf problems, which he said were originally in both calves and later more in his right calf. Parties were in dispute as to whether this injury was related to the back injury and thereby to the accident.
[10] Mr Steedman considered that on a balance of probabilities it was likely that the pursuer sustained an injury to his lower back in the lumbar region as a result of the accident. He considered that the injury had caused inflammation around the facet joints L3/4 vertebrae causing referred pain to the associated nerve dermatonal distribution of his calf. He noted that deep vein thrombosis had been excluded following investigation. He also took into account that the calf pain did not respond to treatment for localised injury but did so when the physiotherapist provided treatment assuming that the pain was referred from the back injury.
[11] Mr McMaster disputed the connection between the calf pain and the back pain. He contended that there was no clinical evidence for Mr Steedman's hypothesis. He pointed out that there was nothing in the records to suggest that the pursuer had suffered pain in both legs nor any neurological evidence relating to the calf pain. There was no swelling in the calf to suggest nerve pain.
[12] The...
To continue reading
Request your trial