The recent judgement by Mr Justice Turner in Eaton v Auto-Cycle Union Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 2642 (KB) is a stark reminder to Instructing Parties of why you should always ensure the Expert Witness you appoint has the correct expertise for the case.
In this case, the claimant asserted that straw bales which had been used as a race track barrier should not have been removed and replaced with tyre barriers.
The judgment reads:
26. Mr Parrish gave evidence on behalf of the claimant. He described himself as a “rider, driver, team manager, owner and commentator in many fields of motor sport”.
27. Mr Jowitt gave evidence on behalf of the defendant. He is a qualified engineer with experience in accident reconstruction and the examination of safety fence systems following collisions.
28. Unhappily, Mr Parrish cut a rather sorry figure in the witness box. Quite simply, he lacked the necessary expertise to substantiate and justify his conclusions. It thus came as no surprise to me that the claimant’s written closing submissions placed no specific reliance upon any part of his evidence.
29. At the centre of the claimant’s case, as originally framed, was the assertion that the straw bales should never have been removed because they were safer than tyre barriers. However, I am sorry to say that, Mr Parrish’s evidence to this effect was entirely devoid of scientific foundation or logical analysis.
30. Mr Jowitt, in contrast, performed laboratory tests which demonstrated that straw bales are significantly stiffer than a tyre wall. Accordingly, in this regard, the deployment of straw bales would have made the barrier generally less rather than more safe. Mr Parrish was simply unable to counter these findings having carried out no tests of his own.
In short, make sure your Expert Witness has the right expertise for the case and also make sure they have had training in being an Expert Witness so they truly understand their duty to the Court.
Need to find trained and vetted Expert Witnesses – why not use our Find an Expert Directory?