Scott Rees & Co has successfully proven an Andover man’s innocence, after he was accused of fraudulently claiming for whiplash, following a car accident he was involved in as a passenger.
Claim for whiplash
Robert Brown was travelling to work in his brother’s car, when they were hit by another car, driven by the defendant at a junction.
Immediately after the accident, Mr Brown developed moderate pain in his right shoulder, as well as severe pain in his neck and mild pain in his lower back. As a result he was unable to work for a couple of weeks.
On paper this looked like a straightforward whiplash claim by Mr Brown, with the defendant admitting that she had had hit the car transporting Robert, driven by his brother. However, the defendant then went on to claim that the driver had been the only person in the car at the time of the accident, therefore suggesting that the claimant’s claims of injury as a result of the crash were fraudulent.
In the defendant’s argument against Mr Brown’s claim, they allege that they could see inside the claimant’s brother’s vehicle following the collision and that the front passenger seat was covered in tools or wood. The defendant also alleged that she assumed the driver involved had called up his brother and that the claimant, Robert Brown had been following in another vehicle, despite the fact the defendant could not recall seeing the other vehicle.
Following the collision, the claimant’s brother stated that the defendant did not stop immediately, as due to their location, this was not safely possible. He states that the defendant continued along the road for a short distance before pulling over in a layby. However, the defendant attempted to dispute this, claiming that they stopped immediately at the initial impact and then continued up the road until they found the layby where it was safe to stop. It is at this point the defendant alleges to have seen into the car carrying the claimant.
What was proven was that the defendant was aware of the claimant’s presence at the scene, as they stated that Mr Brown appeared with their bumper, which had been dislodged upon the impact of the accident.
Representing Mr Brown, Scott Rees & Co were able to put across the fact they were satisfied by his evidence. It was put to the judge that, if anything, Mr Brown had tried to shake off the incident and had made light of his whiplash injuries rather than to pursue treatment or recompense and that he was forced to seek further help by the worsening of the pain he was suffering.
Furthermore, there was satisfactory evidence that the claimant did not own a car, or for that matter a full driving licence and therefore was not travelling in another vehicle and had been the passenger in his brother’s vehicle.
It was also put to the judge that the only witness to the claimant’s case, his brother, had produced evidence that fully compliments the evidence given by Robert and that it was satisfactory to believed that never brother were capable of misleading their legal representative.
As for the defendant, their evidence was called into question due to the fact that it was based on a number of assumptions, rather than hard facts and at one point they were dangerously close in their evidence to resiling from any admission of liability for their own actions by falsely suggesting that the claimant’s brother was speeding.
In the end, the judge agreed with the evidence collated and put forward by Scott Rees & Co and ruled in the favour of the claimant Mr Brown. The defendant’s accusations of fraud were thrown out and Mr Brown was awarded £2515.54 in compensation for his whiplash injury.
If you have been involved in an accident similar to Mr Brown’s and you would feel you might have a claim, visit our car accident claim page and fill out the form to being your claim. Alternatively, give us a call on 0800 61 43 61.