Low-Velocity Impacts in Personal Injury Claims: Callum Fraser v Evelyn Munro [2024] SC EDIN 36 

The recent All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court judgement of Callum Fraser v Evelyn Munro [2024] SC EDIN 36 provides insight on how courts can deal with low-velocity impacts (LVI) in personal injury claims. 

An LVI is typically defined as a collision that occurs at low speed and causes minimal or no vehicle damage. LVI discussions appear where the Defender asserts that the collision could not have caused injury, loss and/or damage. 

The circumstances in Fraser are that the Pursuer was stationary at traffic lights on Balgreen Road, Edinburgh on the 13th February 2022 when a collision occurred as the Defender failed to stop. This resulted in the Defender colliding with the Pursuer’s vehicle at a speed of around 5mph.  There was minimal damage to both vehicles. The Pursuer’s medical evidence asserted that he had moderate neck pain for 2 months with pain gradually resolving within 6 months from the accident. 

The Defender submitted that while liability for the contact of the vehicles was accepted, the extent of the losses was in dispute on the basis that it was a collision at low speed. The Defender submitted that the Pursuer’s evidence was “superficially credible.” Additionally, their submission was that the orthopaedic expert, Mr Matthew Moran, did not have a clear narrative of the immediate aftermath of the accident. 

The main dispute in the case was between the skilled witnesses on the vehicle damage. Mr Alan Bathgate, a consulting automotive engineer, came to the conclusion that there was no damage to the Pursuer’s vehicle as a result of the collision and the only probable damage to the Defender’s vehicle was a crack to the bumper. Mr Bathgate’s evidence discredited the Pursuer’s case that financial loss and injury occurred. 

Mr Bathgate’s opinion was challenged by a forensic collision investigator, Mr Carlo Vaquerizo.  Mr Bathgate and Mr Vaquerizo had differing opinions on the gap between the vehicles after the collision from the video evidence, and whether damage to the vehicles were a consequence of the collision. The video evidence showed a gap between the vehicles of around a foot. Mr Bathgate believed this was not caused by the impact of the collision, whereas Mr Vaquerizo believed it was.

Sheriff Nicol ultimately had to decide between Mr Bathgate’s assertions that the damage and gap were not due to the collision, or Mr Vaquerizo’s views that the damage was due to the accident and that the collision produced enough force to push the Pursuer’s vehicle forward.  

Mr Moran provided insight on the relation between LVI and whiplash injury. Mr Moran states that a whiplash injury occurs where there is an initial acceleration onto the vehicle due to the force of impact, and that the speed is relatively unimportant when determining a Pursuer’s symptom severity. He refers to studies proving that injury can occur where the speed is as low as 2.5mph.

In Sheriff Nicol’s analysis of the causation of the collision, he finds that the Pursuer was credible. Sheriff Nicol supported this finding with the evidence of the video of the gap between the vehicles, Mr Vaquerizo’s evidence that speeds of 4.9mph can cause cosmetic bumper damage, and Mr Bathgate’s evidence that supports the same point.

Therefore, Sheriff Nicol held that the Pursuer proved on the balance of probabilities that he had suffered losses as a result of the collision.

It is important to be aware of the increased fraudulent claims and the possibility that Pursuers can exaggerate their symptoms when there is an LVI. However, as seen in the Fraser judgement, where there is appropriate evidence to suggest that the collision has caused impact, it is clear that LVIs can certainly cause injury.   Therefore, when dealing with an LVI claim, it is paramount that there is accurate medical evidence of injuries, and vehicle damage evidence from skilled witnesses. 

If you have any questions regarding a personal injury claim, please contact me (emily.sillars@dallasmcmillan.co.uk) or any other member of our Personal Injury department for a free, confidential consultation.

Religious Beliefs and Employment
Glasgow City Council Bans Unregulated Cosmetic Pro...

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://www.dallasmcmillan.co.uk/