From CCTV Image:
"It is suggested that approximately 30 per cent or more of whiplash injuries are either fraudulent or exaggerated. Excellent examples of the above are explained in detail from recent court cases.
Billows v Riley, heard in the Liverpool County Court: The Claimant was a passenger on a bus when it was struck by a small vehicle driven by the Defendant. The Defendant was uninjured and there was little damage to the vehicles.
Medical and engineering evidence could have been obtained; however the key issue in reality was the CCTV evidence. While this showed some occupancy displacement there was considerable doubt as to whether this was sufficient to cause injury.
Despite this, a claim was presented by a passenger – a postman with a pre-existing back condition, which potentially made him more susceptible to injury.
Nevertheless, the claim was defended as the CCTV indicated that the Claimant had not been displaced as much as was suggested to the medical expert during the medical examination and was insuffi- cient to cause the injury alleged. The Court agreed, and accordingly the claim was dismissed with costs.
In another case, a man from Northern Ireland admitted that he had made a fraudulent claim for personal injury compensation following a bus crash.
The claimant said that he was injured in the bus crash, but after viewing CCTV evidence it was discovered he was not even on board the bus at the time of the crash.
In court, the 58-year-old man admitted that he wasn’t on the bus at the time of the accident. The bus company was successful in defending itself against the attempt to gain injury compensation and the man withdrew his claim for personal injury compensation, but the bus company wanted to prosecute him for his fraudulent attempts to extort money from them. As a result of the ruling, he had to pay the legal bill to the company, which amounted to £2,700.
Click here for the whole article - Benefits of Mobile CCTV.
Enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment