Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions

JUDGEMENT OF SHERIFF B.C.T. WOOD

Sheriffdom of Tayside Central and Fife sitting at Kirkcaldy.

LAWRIE T. CONWAY

against

SHEENA WOOD

Kirkcaldy , 26^th October 2001

The Sheriff having resumed consideration of the proof, productions and whole cause finds in fact:

1. The Pursuer is Laurie Thomas Conway. He is 23, a Stock Controller and resides at Logie Farm Cottage, Crossford, Dunfermline.
2. The Defender is Sheena Wood, residing at 2 Balmoral Drive, Kirkcaldy.
3. On 27^th May 2000 on the A972 between Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy at the roundabout at the Glenrothes junction, the Defender drove into the back of the Pursuer's moving vehicle causing damage to both vehicles and moving the Pursuer's vehicle forward between 20 and 30 feet. The Pursuer was injured as a result. The Defender accepts full responsibility for causing the accident.
4. The Pursuer suffered no immediate pain but the following morning, pain developed in his neck and upper back and he consulted his GP, Doctor Proudfoot who diagnosed that he had suffered a whiplash injury. The pain was confined to the neck area and the top of the shoulder blades. The Pursuer was prescribed anti inflammatory tablets and advised to wear a neck brace for a few hours every day.
5. The Pursuer went back to work, having been off for 5 days. However, he immediately felt uncomfortable and left work. He went to the Accident & Emergency Unit at the Queen Margaret Hospital in Dunfermline and was seen by a Doctor who referred the Pursuer to a Physiotherapist.
6. The Pursuer was off work for a further 2 weeks. He returned to work, although not 100% recovered, as he did not wish to suffer further wage loss.
7. The Pursuer was given various treatments by the Physiotherapist over a 3 month period and had 12 appointments in all. He was discharged from treatment in October 2000 but following that, he consulted a Doctor Muirhead who referred him back to the Physiotherapist. Doctor Muirhead could see spasms in the neck and lower back discomfort.
8. By this stage, the Pursuer had a stiff neck every morning and was careful about how he moved. The Physiotherapist brought about some further improvement over a period.
9. The pain began in the neck area but as often happens in such injuries, it had moved to the mid back/shoulder blades and then down to the lower back.
10. The Pursuer's posture had a curvature of the spine which is in line with being shunted from the rear in a road traffic accident and the muscle spasms had been caused by that.
11. The Pursuer suffered a fair degree of discomfort for a period of 6 months.
12. The Pursuer did not have any previous inherent difficulties with his neck or back. Psychologically, he is well adjusted.
13. The Pursuer's sporting activities are restricted. He does not go to the gym for exercise. He had tried it but was sore the next day. He no longer plays squash, football or golf. However, he now sleeps well and 17 months after the accident, he believes he is 99% recovered. However, he does have pain when he drives for any length of time.

FINDS IN FACT AND IN LAW

1. That the accident to the Pursuer was caused by the negligence of the Defender.
2. That the Pursuer, having sustained injury thereby, is entitled to reparation from the Defender.
3. Therefore sustains the first and second pleas-in-law for the pursuer and quoad ultra repels parties' pleas; Decerns against the Defender for payment to the Pursuer of the sum of THREE THOUSAND POUNDS (£3,000) sterling with interest thereon at eight percent per annum from 27^th May 2000 until payment; Finds the Defender liable to the Pursuer in the expenses of the cause; Allows an account thereof to be given in and Remits same, when lodged, to the Auditor of Court to tax and to report; certifies the cause as being suitable for the employment of Doctor Muircroft and Emma Jamieson as expert witnesses.

NOTE:

In this action of damages, the Pursuer seeks reparation for the losses he sustained following a road traffic accident in Kirkcaldy on 27^th May 2000. Liability is not disputed. The parties could not agree on the amount of solatium and a proof restricted to such matters was heard on 5^th October 2001. The Pursuer was represented by Miss Jackson and the Defender by Mr Thomson.

The Pursuer gave evidence and came across as a credible and reliable witness who was not exaggerating his symptoms. Almost 17 months after the accident, he had just about made full recovery. He had typical whiplash injuries immediately after the accident and this was largely confined to the neck area. He had sought medical treatment and had been referred to a Physiotherapist. He had taken steps to mitigate his losses but as is typical with such road traffic injuries, his condition deteriorated before it got better and the pain spread down his back. He suffered considerable discomfort for up to 6 months. Thereafter, he gradually got better to the point where he is today. However, he remains sore after driving for any length of time and he chooses not to participate in sport in case it sets matters off again.

The Pursuer's evidence was supported by Dr. Muircroft and Emma Jamieson who provided expert views following examinations they had carried out.

In Urquhart, the pursuer suffered constant pain for 5 weeks followed by intermittent pain and discomfort for approximately 3 months. He still suffered some pain at the time of the proof, approximately 16 months later. In Brennan, the pursuer suffered neck pain which disturbed her sleep and restricted her former activities. At the date of proof, approximately 18 months after the accident, the pursuer was still in pain and medical opinion was that the condition would persist. In both cases, solatium was awarded in the amount of £3,000.

Relating these cases to this case and taking into account the differences and passage of time, I take the view that appropriate reparation would also be found in a payment of solatium of £3,000. .

As far as interest is concerned, I award that at the judicial rate of 8 per cent from the date of the accident until payment. I also accede to the unopposed motion that both the GP and Physiotherapist should be certified as skilled witnesses.

On the question of expenses, I believe the Pursuer has been wholly successful and as a result, expenses should be awarded in his favour.