Colin Leggat v Anthony Ralph and Allianz Insurance Plc, [2010] CSOH 4, 13/01/2010

The pursuer ("Mr Leggat") sued for damage for personal injuries sustained in a Road Traffic accident on 30 May 2005. Liability was admitted and no question of contributory negligence arose. The proof was accordingly restricted to the issue of quantum.
Court: Court Of Session (Outer House) (Scotland)
Click on this link to access the full judgement.

Morag Wise Q.C (sitting a temporary judge) held that the defender was liable in respect of the pursuer’s multiple injuries and loss. The injury occurred as a result of a collision between the defender’s vehicle and the pursuer’s motor cycle. Liability was admitted. No question of contributory negligence arose. The pursuer suffered a near fatal unstable pelvic fracture, and multiple fractures and dislocations to both hands. As a result, he has been left with residual disabilities.

The principal issue surrounded the pursuer’s employment as Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. This contains a rare combination of high manual dexterity and heavy manual work. Medical evidence was led by Angus McLean for the pursuer and James Lindsay for the defender. The judge indicated her strong preference for Angus McLean due to his ability to provide a more comprehensive view of the injuries incurred and impact this would have upon Colin Leggat’s life. It was his opinion that Mr Leggat would be unable to work beyond a further five years. This is attributable to McLean having visited the pursuer on three separate occasions. Lindsay had only seen the pursuer once and was of the view that his employment would remain unaffected. McLean therefore had a better appreciation of the nature of the pursuer’s highly skilled employment and his interpretation was found to withstand logical analysis. Therefore due to his age, he would be prevented from undertaking ten years of his working life.

A total award of £215, 539 was made. Solatium was assessed at £55,000, past wage loss at £11,348, services at £5,000 for past, and £1000 for future and loss of enjoyment of holiday was valued at £2000. Most significantly, a total of £124, 416 was assessed with regard to future wage loss.

The main novelty in this case was that the court used and indeed approved the use of the Ogden Tables (6th Edition). To our knowledge, it is the first unchallenged use of the Ogden Tables at proof. This amounts to judicial acceptance of the Ogden Tables.

External Link

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.