Description
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to adopt an acceleration approach as to the assessment of the claimant's back injury and damages to be awarded thereof. The claimant's expert's opinion was that there was no reason to suggest that the claimant would have suffered a similar disc prolapse in the future but for the accident. The expert opinion of the defendant's expert was that the claimant would have suffered from a similar prolapse within 2 years independently of the accident. The judge had preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert and assessed the claimant's damages on the basis of a 2-year acceleration period. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to prefer the evidence of the defendant's expert and that provided the acceleration period found by a judge fairly reflected the medical evidence, the acceleration approach could properly be adopted.
