Sheriff rejects argument that 15mph motorbike crash could not cause injury to lorry driver

A sheriff has awarded GBP3,216 in damages to a lorry driver who was injured when a learner motorcyclist collided with the back of his lorry and he fell from the steps outside the cab after he rejected an argument that the force involved in the crash was too small to cause any injury.

About this case:

• Citation:

  [2025] SC AIR 70

• Judgment:
• Court:

  Sheriff Court

• Judge:

  Sheriff Scott Pattison

Pursuer John Good raised a claim against the rider's insurer, West Bay Insurance Plc, seeking solatium only in respect of a knee injury that he took two months to recover from. The defender sought to challenge the pursuer's account of events on the basis that his expert witness had a financial interest in the outcome of the case and by seeking to lead biomechanical evidence. The case was heard by Sheriff Scott Pattison in Airdrie Sheriff Court.

Hastings, solicitor advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Smith, advocate, for the defender.

Balancing on one foot

On the morning of 14 April 2023, the pursuer parked his employer's lorry on a road within the Westfield Industrial Estate in Cumbernauld. He got out of the lorry, walked round the front of it, and climbed up the steps at the passenger's side. At the same time, the defender's insurer, Daniel Thomson, turned left onto the same road and rode into the rear of the lorry.

Mr Thomson did not see the stationary lorry as he was blinded by the sun when he turned the corner. The pursuer's account was that at the point of impact he was standing on the steps at the passenger side of the lorry, leaning into the cab and balancing on one foot as he went to retrieve his boots. When Mr Thomson's motorcycle collided with the lorry, at a speed of between 10 and 15 miles per hour, the pursuer lost his balance, struck his left knee on the steel doorframe of the lorry, and fell to the ground.

After the accident, the pursuer did not attend his GP and chose to self-medicate with ibuprofen for two months. His evidence was that he worked in a small team and the unspoken rule was not to take any time off work unless you were "dying". When it was suggested by the defender that he had been in the cab of his vehicle at the point of impact, he said that he would not have been injured in the way he had if that was the case.

Further evidence was given by Mr S Sinha, consultant orthopaedic surgeon, who found the pursuer's injuries consistent with his account of being on the steps of the cab. The defender invited the court to find this evidence inadmissible on the basis that he had demonstrated insufficient independence, as he accepted payment only in cases that had settled. The defender also led evidence from Mr P Hughes, who presented himself as a "forensic engineer" but accepted in cross-examination that he was not a qualified engineer.

He took the view that the biomechanics of physics meant that the impact involved in the collision would not have transferred enough force to cause the pursuer to fall from the cab steps.

Straightforward and did not exaggerate

In his decision, Sheriff Pattison said of the admissibility of Mr Sinha's evidence: "When one assesses the remarks made about being paid when cases settle against the rest of Mr Sinha's evidence, namely that he would be paid in this case regardless of outcome then it seems to me that the witness must have been unclear about the meaning of 'settle,' and may well have meant when cases concluded, irrespective of outcome. I found him to be an independent and impartial witness doing his best to assist the court." He added: "I found the pursuer Mr Good to be a credible and reliable witness.

He was straightforward and did not exaggerate. I believed him. He was clear his vehicle had moved on its wheels, even if only a little, enough to knock him off balance, strike his left knee on the door frame and fall on the ground.

That he took little or no time off work and did not go to his GP initially militates in favour of his credibility." Taking the view that Mr Hughes' evidence was of little value, the sheriff said: "He had started his analysis in this case with an assumed co-efficient rather than by reference to even an estimated impact speed. His expression of his conclusions in absolute terms was unfortunate and gave the appearance of such certainty as though he was the decision-maker.

I note he also conceded in cross-examination he had not interviewed either Mr Good or Mr Thomson and that there was a potential that Mr Good may have felt some form of 'vibration' though he maintained his basic position that the force would have been negligible." He concluded: "In this case the court is dealing with a period of pain and injury persisting for around 3 months. I was invited to adopt a pragmatic and holistic approach to the assessment of solatium.

There was no contrary position put forward in submissions and I am therefore content to give effect to the pursuer's motion that an award of GBP3,000 plus interest calculated at 4% adding GBP216."