Widlake v BAA Plc

Damages are recoverable only for injuries and losses proved to have been caused by the accident. Where a claimant has a pre-existing condition, the court must distinguish the accident-related aggravation from the condition’s natural progression. The court is not required to resolve an expert disagreement about the precise medical source of symptoms where that disagreement is immaterial to causation or prognosis. Special damages must be supported by satisfactory evidence of the expenditure and its causal connection with the accident.

The claimant was injured when she fell down stairs at work at Stansted Airport. Liability was admitted. The issues at trial concerned the extent to which the accident aggravated pre-existing lower-back degeneration, the duration and severity of the resulting pain, and the claimant’s consequential financial losses.

The claimant alleged that the accident accelerated the inevitable deterioration of her back by about five years. The defendant contended that it caused only a temporary aggravation lasting about 12 months. The court also considered claims for earnings loss, travel expenses, prescription costs and chiropractic treatment.

1. Findings on causation and credibility. The claimant had a significant pre-accident history of lumbar symptoms. The judge rejected her account that the accident had caused continuing substantial back pain and found that she had deliberately concealed her previous history from medical experts. The covert surveillance was treated as representative of her actual level of functioning.
2. The accident caused a back injury, but its consequences were comparatively minor. The evidence did not establish that it accelerated the natural deterioration of the claimant’s pre-existing condition by five years. The accident-related effects had resolved within about 12 months and may have lasted only a few weeks.
3. The judge declined to determine whether the symptoms arose principally from the sacro-iliac joint or degenerative changes at L5/S1. Both experts agreed that the distinction was not significant for causation or prognosis, so resolving it was unnecessary.
4. Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity were assessed at £3,500. The accepted accident-related earnings loss was £2,022.38. Future losses and chiropractic expenses were not recoverable because they related to the claimant’s continuing pre-existing condition or treatment after the accident-related consequences had resolved.
5. The claims for travel to medical appointments and prescription costs failed because the evidence did not adequately prove the expenditure. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £5,522.38, together with interest.