Frost v Oldfield

[2010] EWHC 279 (QB)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) | 2010 · reported | England and Wales

Expert criticised for manner in which evidence was presented

Originally published in TEDR Volume 15 Issue 2 (publication date not recorded).

This was a road traffic accident claim where the Claimant and Defendant were each riding motorcycles along a single lane road but travelling in opposite directions. The facts of the accident were that they hit each other somewhere on the carriageway, each sustaining right-sided injuries. The question for the Court was which rider was on the wrong side of the road and therefore who was to blame for the accident. In the alternative the question was did they meet in the middle of the road and, therefore, both share some of the blame.

Both sides instructed accident reconstruction experts to examine the forensic evidence available at the scene. Further, there was lay witness evidence from each motorcyclist (essentially neither of whom could remember the entirety of the accident) plus some lay witnesses who saw the events leading up to the accident and indeed the aftermath.

This full content of this article is available to TAE members.

Log in Become a TAE Member

Articles reflect the law and practice at the time of original publication, except where a dated update is shown. Subsequent developments may affect their relevance or accuracy. They are provided for general information and do not constitute legal or professional advice. Obtain appropriate advice on your particular circumstances. Full disclaimer.

← Browse all cases

Contact Us