Commentary

There are some general learning points for all experts but otherwise this is for neurosurgeons. It is another road traffic accident personal injury case in which the court needed the assistance of neurosurgeons, or at least it would have done but for the fact that it made a finding which made it unnecessary to consider the neurosurgical evidence before reaching a judgment. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant were not in dispute. What was in dispute, but ultimately irrelevant, was what the child’s injuries would have been if the driver of the vehicle had been driving (non-negligently) at a lower speed than he was. It was on this point that the neurosurgical experts disagreed.

The neurosurgical expert instructed on behalf of the claimant relied on two particular publications and it is the scrutiny of these about which neurosurgical experts need to be aware. Both authorities, D.C. Richards and B.C. Tefft, have been relied upon in similar cases previously. Tefft was also considered in Gadsby v Hayes [2024] EWHC 2142 (KB). Although work by Richards was considered in Colizzi v Coulson [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB) it was not the Department for Transport report but his 2007 conference presentation: Cuerden RW, Richards DC, Hill J. Pedestrians and their survivability at different impact speeds. Proceedings of the International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV); 2007. Summaries of Gadsby and Colizzi are in the 2023-2024 Compendium of Summaries of Judgments.

Learning points:

• Be prepared to make reasonable and sensible concessions.

• Do not misrepresent an academic appointment.

• Be careful when stating your balance of claimant/defendant (civil) or prosecution/defendant (criminal) work.

• Do not be taken aback if asked about the balance of your instructions.

• If you ignore evidence that may not support the case of your instructing party, you risk it being suggested that you are seeking to build a case for your instructing party rather than independently analysing the evidence in reaching your opinion.

• Beware overstepping your remit in giving evidence outside your field of expertise.

• When relying on medical literature, consider carefully how relevant studies are to the specifics of the instant case.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login