An interesting read.
Without seeing pictures, scene examination diagrams etc it is difficult to make an assessment on just the words in the transcript. However, it is interesting to note that there is much expert witness evidence submitted with regards to the actions and position of the Range Rover, right down to 0.5cm in one part, but that there is no evidence to prove or disprove the claimants account that she braked and steered to her nearside on seeing the approaching Range Rover, yet the car did not respond. If there were tyre marks left on the road by the RR, what about any left by the VW? Equally, there is no mention of weather or road conditions eg wet with fallen leaves covering the carriageway. It was agreed that her speed was not the issue, so what was? Was there a mechanical defect that caused the car not to respond to her steering input? Did her car skid under heavy braking or was there a tyre blow out? This part of the investigation, to me, is a crucial part of this case and yet remains missing. Why?
In summing up, the judge has found that the claiment, on the balance of probability, was distracted by the Mazda and the RR was too far over to start off with and so apportions equal blame but to me, without the expert witness evidence concluding what actually caused the VW to collide with the RR, I believe the judge has not taken into account all aspects of this RTC and was wrong in his direction at that time.
Was there a magistrates hearing for careless and inconsiderate driving before this?
