Background

Contact between two cars in stationary traffic ‘so inconsequential that it caused no damage’ led to legal action by two sisters who were in one of the cars, which involved ten professional or expert witnesses: two engineers, a motor assessor, four GPs, an orthopaedic surgeon, and two consultant psychiatrists.

The traffic incident itself was simple and easily resolved – it is the wide ranging obiter that will be of more interest, in a judgement of the High Court of Ireland (Cahill v Forristal; O’Riordan v Forristal [2022] IEHC 705) which extended to a comprehensive criticism of the waste of police, medical, and Court resources resulting from the claim; and broader criticism and detailed commentary about the inappropriate use of experts.

Inappropriate use of experts

There were three referrals to medical specialists, critically, made by a Plaintiff’s lawyer, rather than by her doctor – which the Court highlighted as contrary to an earlier decision of the High Court of Ireland.

The Court explained that not only were referrals by solicitors less credible because they were ‘prima facie evidence that there is in fact no medical basis for [the] referral,’ the reports resulting from those referrals risked a finding of inadmissibility, because it was arguable that a medical report procured by a solicitor without any medical grounds was not ‘reasonably required to determine the proceedings’ – as the Court Rules require.

The Court found that engineering evidence in the case ‘was of little or no value’ – but it was careful to note that such a conclusion was ‘not a reflection of the engineer’s undoubted expertise’ and that he ‘was asked to give this expert evidence and he would not be expected to refuse the offer of well-paid work.’

The Court also directed criticism toward the unnecessary use of experts on matters ‘of common knowledge.’ That criticism was not prompted by the case to hand –  it was noted as a response to an application in another, completely unrelated, personal injuries case in which a party sought an adjournment to accommodate the limited availability of an engineering expert who was to present engineering evidence on ‘how to pour water from a kettle.’

Outcome

The Court identified several false claims made by the two plaintiffs: that the other driver – in fact, a non-drinker– smelled of alcohol, that airbags had discharged when they had not, that the other driver had left the scene of an accident when he had actually stopped to confirm with the sisters that that there was no damage to their car; and concluded that they had failed to prove that the incident occurred as they claimed, or that it caused the alleged injuries.

The plaintiffs were as unsuccessful as the unrelated adjournment application!