In order for a victim to successfully pursue a claim for compensation the injured victim must prove that the other party (known as the Defendant) was not only negligent (i.e. at fault for the accident) but also that the negligent party by his or her negligence caused the victims injuries and other losses sustained ( we call this ‘causation’).
This is not too difficult to prove in most accident cases e.g. your roof collapses at work and you break your leg – Causation is pretty simple in this scenario as it’s obvious the roof collapsing has broken your leg, which in turn has caused you to be off work, incurring a loss of earnings which can then be recovered as well as any reasonable help from friends and family, travelling, treatment etc
Causation is usually one of the main issues in most medical negligence cases but it is still fairly rare in most other accident claims.
I did however come across an interesting car accident case the other day that I wanted to share with you; where the negligent driver raised the defence of causation. The case is Osbourne V Campbell, where the judge held that the driver of a vehicle was travelling too fast for the conditions of the road (even though he was not travelling over 30mph) when he ran over a pedestrian causing the pedestrian brain damage. The drivers lawyer tried to argue that the accident would have happened anyway and although this was the case; there was evidence from an accident reconstruction expert that had the defendant had been travelling at a lower speed (under 15mph) there was less of a chance that the Claimant (pedestrian) would have incurred brain damage from the impact.
So in a car accident claim in order to make a claim you need to prove that the other driver caused the accident and the subsequent losses (including your injuries)
Looking at the case of Osbourne V Campbell, If speed is at issue, the judge will look at two things:
1. Could the accident have been avoided
2. Would the injuries have been less severe at a lower speed
Your lawyer will need to gather evidence for points 1 and 2.
