H v M (Road traffic accident involving a car and a motorcyclist, liability disputed)

The Claimant motorcyclist had sustained severe multiple injuries when attempting to overtake a motorcar, which was in fact performing a U-turn into a parking bay on the opposite side of the road.

The Claimant was a very experienced motorcyclist; he had no recollection of the accident but very strong convictions that he was extremely careful and would not have made any error. In particular, the Claimant was sure that he would not have failed to see a right hand indicator flashing if it had been on and would not have attempted to overtake if he had seen it.

The Defendant driver was adamant that he had been indicating and liability was always going to be vigorously defended.

The parties agreed to Independent Evaluation without going to the expense and time of obtaining accident reconstruction evidence.

The Evaluator took the parties through the evidence, helping them to identify and explore the factual issues, the likely findings and their consequences for liability and apportionment. Careful consideration was given as to whether there was any indication and, if so, the timing and signalling of any indication to turn and the precise movements of the motorcar and motorbike.

In a way that is simply not possible in litigation, the Claimant had the benefit of asking questions, receiving answers and discussion with the tribunal. It was only through lengthy, calm discussion with the Evaluator that he came to understand and accept the very substantial litigation risks.

There was agreement that obtaining accident reconstruction evidence would not advance the understanding of the accident substantially, or at all, beyond the Evaluator’s grasp.

The Evaluator provided the parties with the likely outcome at trial and thereafter it was possible to facilitate a mutually optimal settlement of damages and costs on the day.

This was a case where without an Evaluator providing an independent and firm view, a trial was inevitable.

Very substantial costs were saved and both Claimant and Defendant achieved a settlement years ahead of the likely trial date.