New expert witness guidance? Kennedy v Cordia 2016

Expert evidence forms the basis of almost every claim that comes before the courts in personal injury and clinical negligence litigation. The experts instructed will be of fundamental importance to the success or failure of the case. The legal profession are increasingly aware of the responsibility when instructing an expert to ensure that the expert is aware of their duty to the court. Following the case of Jones v Kaney (2011),1 it is important that experts know that their evidence no longer carries immunity from an action in contract or negligence if it is found to be wanting. In light of this, it is worth reading the judgement in the Kennedy v Cordia case.2 Who would have thought that a bruised wrist from a fall on an icy footpath in 20103 would lead to the Supreme Court giving useful guidance on when expert evidence would be allowed in a civil court? The claimant (Ms Kennedy) was employed as a home carer by the defendant. Her work involved visiting clients in their homes and providing personal care. One wintry December evening, she was required to visit an elderly lady. She slipped and fell, injuring her wrist. She sued the company, and called Lenford Greasly as part of her case, a consulting engineer and former factory inspector. Mr Greasley opined that as part of the risk assessment for her role Ms Kennedy should have been provided with some form of anti-slip overshoe which, if worn, would probably have prevented her injury. The defendant objected to his evidence on the basis that he did not have any special skill, learning or experience. This objection was rejected initially by the court. At first appeal (motivated partly by concerns about the unnecessary proliferation of experts in civil cases which is seen to …