Judge ‘Swayed’ By GBB Evidence

A report by a GBB forensic expert has “swayed” a judge in a recent court case and was “essential to the Defence”.

The GBB evidence provided led the judge to find in favour of the Defendant and throw out the Claimant’s injury claims.

Our expert wrote a forensic examination report back in March 2012 after it was claimed that a Mercedes Benz was being driven along a road when the wheel subsequently became loose, causing the driver to lose control and crash into a hedge, leading him to sustain injury.

If the wheel had come off as reported, upon examination, the expert would expect to see distinctive damage to the lower suspension components as they contacted the road surface.

Although there was damage to the nearside of the vehicle that was consistent with passing a hedge, “the nearside lower suspension unit did not exhibit any damage consistent with having ground along the road surface” in a manner as suggested.

lower suspension

There would also be an expectation of grinding and gouge marks to the road surface and soft grass verge as the suspension dug in. However, the photographs provided to GBB did not show any gouge or furrow marks and the police report did not identify damage to the road surface.

Front nearside wheel
The expert concluded that there was no evidence (both vehicular and scene) to indicate that the vehicle’s front nearside wheel had come off the vehicle whilst it was travelling down the road as was reported.

Mark Cox, of Weightmans, said: “The lack of physical evidence of any damage to the road or to the vehicle formed the framework for the defence of the claim.”

The claim was heard before His Honour Judge Godsmark and he ruled in favour of the Defendant, his judgement “confirming that he was swayed by the physical evidence”.