EWJ June 2024 web - Journal - Page 65
he would be doing so when sitting on the rack,
holding on with only one hand and without a helmet.
l The judge accepted our expert's view that helmets
are tested for both linear and rotational forces. The
effect of a tangential or rotational glancing blow to a
helmet is part of the testing process. Helmets can
therefore protect against both linear and rotational
forces, essentially mitigating the effect of a TBI.
Having said this, the greater blame lay with the
defendant. Although a little older than the defendant,
the claimant did not have the same level of experience
as the defendant when it came to using quad bikes and
the claimant, in effect, deferred to the defendant. This
was not akin to those cases involving joint criminal enterprise; rather, it was similar to the drink-driving
cases where the primary blame attached to the driver
rather than the person at risk because of the driving of
the vehicle.
l The claimant's expert had rather misunderstood
what tangential forces are.
l The judge again accepted our expert's evidence that
the glossy surface on a helmet is designed to avoid friction and thus reduce the changes in direction caused
by linear and rotational forces.
The judge was not persuaded by the claimant's argument that his contributory negligence should be less
than 20%, (based on cases involving drink-driving)
and concluded that 30% was appropriate in the circumstances.
l The claimant's expert's evidence that rotational
Points to consider
The court did not regard the circumstances of this
case as being akin to passengers getting into a vehicle
with a drunk driver for which the usual deduction is
20%.
l The claimant pleaded that he had suffered a Diffuse
Axonal Injury (DAI) which, his expert said, was due to
the effect of rotational forces experienced during the
accident. In fact, the judge preferred our expert's evidence that the injuries which the claimant suffered
were due solely to linear forces reinforcing our view
that, in fact, the claimant had not suffered a DAI.
forces were not part of the testing regime for motorcycle helmets tested was not accepted. The judge
found that the effect of rotational forces can be
mitigated by wearing a helmet.
The manner of the defendant's driving will be factored
into assessment and the slower or safer the defendant
is driving suggests that the claimant faces the risk of a
higher percentage deduction.
Author
James Knight - Partner
www.dacbeachcroft.com
While the helmet point was a more minor one in our
overall case, there are useful comments surrounding
the evidence:
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
63
JUNE 2024