Scottish Whiplash Case Law Update

Tennant v Direct Line Insurance 2010 SLT (Sh Ct) 71 The claimant sustained injury to her neck, arms and body following a road traffic accident. She made a full recovery after thirteen months. The court considered the disruption to her work and social life as a result of her injuries and awarded £2,000 in general damages. In so doing, the court stated that the authorities cited could do little more than set parameters in connection with an injury of this type as the injuries sustained may give rise to a variety of consequences relative to the circumstances and lifestyle or commitments of each individual claimant.

Pollock v Westall July 2010 The claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to her lower back, exacerbating her pre-existing chronic back pain. The claimant made a recovery to her pre-existing level of symptoms within nine months of the accident. The claimant also experienced mild anxiety and hyper-vigilance whilst driving for eighteen months. The court held that the claimant's injury fell within the minor category of back injuries in the JSB Guidelines and, although the psychological effects were minor, it was appropriate to take them into account. The court awarded general damages of £2,750.

The full judgment can be read by clicking here.

Liability – Road Traffic

Davis v Catto & others [2010] CSOH 93 The claimant was a passenger in the defendant's car which left the road and crashed into a field. She sustained serious spinal injuries. Prior to leaving the road, the defendant (Catto) had been driving his car at speed and had just completed an overtaking manoeuvre of a car driven by the third party (Skinner). The court heard evidence from independent witnesses that both drivers had been seen driving at "grossly excessive" speeds in the lead up to the crash. Both drivers had also pled guilty to separate road traffic offences in earlier criminal proceedings. The defendant had admitted liability to the claimant and the trial was concerned solely with the issue of the apportionment of liability as between the two drivers.

The defendant's primary position at trial was that the two drivers had been engaged in "competitive" driving as they drove along the road, with both drivers driving at excessive speeds and also carrying out repeated overtaking manoeuvres. The third party maintained that no such overtaking had taken place and that the sole cause of the accident was the defendant's loss of control as he completed the final overtaking...