Report comment

I remember acting for an air hostess who was on the way to work at Manchester airport when a young girl smashed into the back of her vehicle, the tpi raise LVI and disputed causation on the basis of lack of damage to their vehicle and served an engineers report to support this. The client was so adamant that the third party vehicle had sustained a smashed front grill that I instructed an engineer to inspect their vehicle, whilst talking to the young lady's father he admitted that he had bought a replacement grill from a scrap yard (which the defendant engineer either failed to spot or chose to ignore) but more damning was the evidence of black marks on top of the front bumper which showed that it had been pushed inwards before popping out again which could only have occurred in a fairly high speed collision, it was strange how our engineer spotted this but the tpi's engineer didn't.

On another occasion my client was insistent that the defendant Volvo had become impaled on his tow bar and the vehicles had to be pulled apart at the scene, the defendant (who was an expert witness in child abuse cases) denied this at all and alleged LVI and said his vehicle was hardly damaged and alleged that the hole in his front bumper which was later repaired had been caused when his vehicle was left parked outside his workplace (he tried to change the accident date to support this). Tpi engineer reported that if the accident had occurred as we alleged the tp vehicle front grill would have been devastated and the radiator damaged, our engineer advised that the radiator in a Volvo is about a foot from the front grill and wouldn't have been touched at all. Tpi ran case to a week before trial before settling by which time I had three witness lined up to testify on the accident date alone, my client was a lovely man who was made to feel like a criminal whilst the defendant walked away scott free after causing an enormous amount of work and stress to all concerned.