Williams v Jervis (Lex Komatsu)

A low-speed rear-end collision can cause significant injury even where the occupant’s head does not strike the vehicle. The court must assess causation and injury on the balance of probabilities by considering the collision mechanics, medical evidence, lay evidence and the claimant’s presentation as a whole. Primary head impact is not an essential precondition to brain injury. Where the claimant establishes genuine vestibular, brachial plexus and cognitive injuries caused by the accident, damages may include continuing loss of earnings and future treatment, subject to proof of each head of loss.

The claimant’s car was struck from behind while she was stopped at a zebra crossing. The defendant accepted primary liability but alleged contributory negligence and disputed the extent and causation of the claimant’s continuing symptoms.

The claim concerned vestibular injury, a brachial plexus or nerve-root injury, and alleged brain injury causing cognitive and behavioural difficulties. The claimant sought substantial damages, including loss of earnings, on the basis that she could no longer work as an intensive-care nursing sister. The central issues were whether the injuries were genuine, whether they were caused by the collision, and the resulting financial consequences.

1. Liability and contributory negligence. The defendant’s allegations that the claimant’s brake lights were defective and that she was using a mobile telephone were rejected. There was no satisfactory evidence that the claimant’s conduct contributed to the accident.
2. Collision mechanics. The collision involved an estimated speed change of approximately 9–10 miles per hour and was slightly offset from the centre. The resulting rotational force was capable of causing injury. The distance travelled by the claimant’s car after impact was not critical to the assessment.
3. Physical injuries. The claimant sustained a peripheral vestibular lesion and a minor brachial plexus injury involving irritation to the nerve roots. The court preferred the evidence supporting those diagnoses and rejected the contrary evidence where it was inadequately reasoned or insufficiently informed by the evidence.
4. Brain injury. The court accepted that the collision was capable of causing axonal damage. Primary trauma to the head was not a prerequisite for brain injury. On the balance of probabilities, the claimant suffered post-traumatic amnesia lasting several days and a brain injury causing genuine cognitive dysfunction. The court rejected the theory that her symptoms were explained by an overvalued idea.
5. Credibility and expert evidence. Although the claimant had exaggerated some matters and had been dishonest in relation to a professional registration declaration, she was truthful about the fundamentals of her post-accident symptoms. The court gave no reliance to the principal defence neurological evidence because the expert had approached the case through disbelief and had argued the defence case rather than maintaining the focus of an expert witness.
6. Loss and disposition. The cumulative effect of the injuries prevented the claimant from returning to her nursing career and rendered her probably unemployable. The court awarded £45,000 general damages, £189,036 for past loss of earnings, £180,127 for future loss of earnings, £47,797 for future pension loss, £7,713 for treatment and miscellaneous expenses, and £2,500 for future vestibular treatment and gym attendance. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the agreed total of £511,903.