Glasgow taxi driver awarded road accident damages after defender’s expert changes view during evidence

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC GLA 88
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff S Reid

Muhammad Suleman raised a claim against One Insurance Ltd seeking solatium plus the £1932.70 cost of repairs to his vehicle with interest. The defender denied liability, and esto there was a collision argued that it was not of sufficient force to cause the injuries complained of.

The case was heard by Sheriff Stuart Reid in Glasgow Sheriff Court. C Dougherty, solicitor, appeared for the pursuer and G MacDougall, solicitor, for the defender.

Strong likelihood

On 11 March 2023, the pursuer stopped his vehicle at traffic lights on Auldhouse Road, Glasgow. In the back was a fare-paying passenger, Ms Healy, whose husband had booked her the ride via Uber. While waiting, the pursuer saw in his rear-view mirror a Mercedes belonging to the defender’s insured, Mr Rasool, approaching at speed. His evidence was that immediately after catching sight of Mr Rasool’s car, it struck his vehicle and caused injury to his neck. Ms Healy was thrown forward in her seat but did not suffer any injury.
The position of the defender, and of Mr Rasool, was that no collision took place at all. Instead, Mr Rasool said that, having approached the rear of the pursuer’s stationary vehicle as it sat at traffic lights and having come to a stop behind the pursuer’s car, he realised that he was too close to the rear of the pursuer’s vehicle and was anxious that he might set off the rear sensors on the pursuer’s vehicle. Therefore, Mr Rasool decided to reverse back a little.

Expert evidence was also led from Dr Foxworthy, consultant orthopaedic surgeon, for the pursuer. In addition to the witness evidence, the pursuer also presented Whatsapp messages between Ms Healy and her husband, who had been alerted on his phone to the fact that the taxi had stopped moving, from the time of the accident.

The pursuer’s position was further reinforced when the defender’s own expert Mr Mackay, a forensic collision investigator, conceded the “strong likelihood” that the crash had occurred. This concession was based on his observation of markings on a photograph of the pursuer’s rear bumper, taken shortly after the collision, which he considered to be consistent with the shape and height of the registration plate on the front of Mr Rasool’s vehicle.

The cause of Mr Mackay’s initial conclusion was determined to be an initial focus on a square-shaped area of damage on the rear bumper. However, it was later determined that this damage was not caused by the defender but by an earlier collision, with the physical damage to the pursuer’s vehicle caused by the collision with the defender assessed as relatively minor.

Helpful expert testimony

Evaluating the evidence of the parties and Ms Healy, Sheriff Reid said in his judgment: “The pursuer struck me as an honest, rather unsophisticated, individual, doing his best to tell me the truth. I could detect no attempt to deceive or exaggerate. He gave his testimony in a frank and open manner. The pursuer’s corroborating witness, Ms Healy, was exceptionally impressive. She was entirely independent of the pursuer [and] gave an account of the collision that was graphic, detailed, and largely consistent in material respects with the pursuer’s account.”

He added on Mr Mackay’s change of view: “This surprise concession flatly contradicted the conclusions in Mr Mackay’s earlier written report and supplementary reports that had been lodged in process, but I make no criticism of him for that volte-face. On the contrary, I commend him for his candour, composure, and independence in revising his opinion in light of the information presented to him in the course of his examination-in-chief. I am grateful to him for his assistance as a skilled witness.”

Assessing how the damage to the pursuer’s vehicle had occurred, Sheriff Reid said: “What appears to have happened is that the rear bumper, as it is designed to do, has absorbed much (but not all) of the force of the contact and has largely retained its shape without sustaining significant physical damage. Nevertheless, force was transferred through the vehicle sufficient to displace both occupants in the pursuer’s vehicle, and to cause injury to the pursuer. The rear bumper has returned to its moulded state, a process envisaged by Mr Mackay in his helpful expert testimony.”

He concluded: “While the back and shoulder symptoms endured for longer, the evidence indicates that the pain was at a relatively modest level, and intermittent in nature, and with no material impact upon his working or domestic life, no time off work, no restriction on his leisure activities, no disrupted sleep, no material medical intervention, and no material impact on his day-to-day quality of life. In fairness to the pursuer, his discomfort was at least sufficient to cause him to attend his general practitioner on three separate occasions.”

The sheriff therefore assessed solatium at £1,750, with interest of four per cent per annum to 11 November 2023 and eight per cent thereafter and made a further award of £120 for the cost of inspecting the pursuer’s vehicle, for a total award of £2,184.72, with interest thereon.