Glasgow motorist awarded over £3,000 after suffering neck pain from car accident

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] SC EDIN 53
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff K J Campbell

Farheen Ackrim sought damages from UK Insurance Ltd after she sustained a soft tissue injury from the collision, which she said had affected her neck and spine. The defender admitted liability and did not lead any witnesses at proof but disputed the extent of the pursuer’s losses.

The case was heard in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court by Sheriff Kenneth Campbell. A Black, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and J Thompson, advocate, for the defender.

Could not stand

On 16 August 2020, whilst the pursuer was waiting at a junction controlled by a Give Way sign, the defender’s insured collided with the rear of her vehicle. As a consequence of the collision the pursuer’s body was jerked forward and was restrained by her seatbelt, and over the next 12 days she developed worsening pain to her neck caused by a soft tissue injury. The injuries to her neck continued to affect her until their substantial resolution in November 2020.

At the proof hearing, the pursuer gave evidence and led evidence from two medical witnesses, Dr MacFarlane and Dr Vohra. The pursuer told the court that following the accident she could not stand for lengthy periods and required assistance from her family to cook, clean, and do washing. She also stated that she felt pain to her spine and lower back, however this was challenged in cross-examination.

Regarding when she approached her GP about her symptoms, the pursuer said that she did not initially do so but was contacted by phone after the pharmacy advised the GP about her condition about a week or 10 days afterwards. When her symptoms did not improve, she was examined remotely by Dr Vohra, who noted that the pursuer had phoned the GP two days after the accident. When asked why he would do this, the pursuer said that he must have misheard her.

It was noted in cross-examination that the defender had offered physical therapy to the pursuer on several occasions, but she had declined on the basis that she did not believe it would be of benefit to her. Dr Vohra was also challenged about the content of a supplementary report he produced two months prior to the proof, which counsel for the defender criticised on the basis that he had failed to comment on the pursuer’s baseline fitness prior to the accident.

Some neck discomfort

In his decision, Sheriff Campbell said of the pursuer’s evidence: “Even allowing for the fact that the accident was just over four years ago and thus recollection may have dulled with time, I did not find the pursuer to be a reliable witness, and, on some matters, her evidence was incredible. Her response to many questions in cross-examination was that she could not recall.”

He continued: “I found her answers to questions about the offer of physiotherapy by the defender’s outsourced rehabilitation service to be evasive. In the face of the GP records for 28 August 2020 and 2 October 2020, I am unable to accept the pursuer’s evidence that she suffered back pain. I therefore accept the pursuer’s evidence only to the extent it is consistent with contemporaneous independent evidence.”

Accepting that the pursuer had suffered a neck injury based on the reliable evidence before him, Sheriff Campbell said: “Given my conclusions about the truthfulness of the pursuer’s evidence about back pain at the time of examination by Dr Vohra, and the questionable reliability of her account of contact with the GP, I am cautious in accepting that the pursuer’s symptoms were as long lasting as she stated. I am prepared to accept there may have been some neck discomfort at the point of examination by Dr Vohra on 12 November 2020; that I take from Dr Vohra’s evidence that symptoms were mild and variable.”

He concluded: “I consider that the appropriate range is to be found in Chapter 7(A)(c)(iii) of the Judicial College Guidelines – the lowest bracket for neck injuries, with recovery in 3 months. That bracket indicates awards up to £2990. Severity of injury, intensity of pain, impact on daily life, and the nature of any treatment are listed as relevant considerations in assessing the level of award. I will award £2000 under the heading of solatium. Interest is all to the past and amounts to £693.32, say £694, to date.”

To this sum, the sheriff added £450 for the services provided by the pursuer’s family, resulting in an award of £3,144.