Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 17: Wellbeing and Resilience as an Expert Witness

October 10th is World Mental Health Day and in this month's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at the issue of wellbeing and...
Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Clarifying the role of validity testing in expert evidence

Following last month’s case update by Professor Keith Rix of Brown v Morgan Sindall, several experts have offered further reflections on the use...
Read between the lines, judge Read between the lines, judge

Read between the lines, judge

Familiar to all experts, this case illustrates how personal injury claimants can attempt to maximise their claim by dishonestly reporting symptoms and...
John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70 John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

John Good against West Bay Insurance Plc [2025] SC AIR 70

The person insured by the defendant drove his motorcycle into the pursuer’s parked lorry causing the pursuer, who claimed he was standing on the...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Jennings v Otis Ltd [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB)
Wiebke Morgan 2036

Jennings v Otis Ltd [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB)

byWiebke Morgan

The case: the Appellant, an experienced lift engineer employed by the first Respondent, suffered the traumatic amputation of his arm when it became entangled in lift drive machinery which he was inspecting at the Second Defendant's premises. It is the Appellant's case that the drive machinery was inadequately guarded and the accident occurred when he stumbled or lost his balance and his arm bypassed what guarding was present and went into the moving parts. It is the case on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellant's version of events is implausible and the accident occurred because the Appellant deliberately chose to put his arm through a gap in the guarding in order to undertake some work on the machinery.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.