Court rules potato picker "exaggerated" car accident injury

Tuesday 29 November 2022

A potato picker, who suffered whiplash injuries in a car accident, has been found by the Royal Court to have significantly exaggerated her injuries in a claim against her employer.

In a recently published judgment, the court ruled that the pain and discomfort suffered by Stanislawa Piechota could not be attributed entirely to the vehicle collision she was involved in while working for the Jersey Royal Company.

The court heard that Ms Piechota had moved to Jersey from Poland after her husband had been diagnosed with Huntingdon's Disease in 2010 – the move enabled her to earn money to support her family, while two of the couple's three children helped care for their father in Poland.

Two vehicles, both owned by the Jersey Royal Company, were involved in the collision in January 2016, as a result of which the company accepted liability.

This led to the legal claim by Ms Piechota, with the judgement noting that she was seeking 'a substantial sum for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and for special damages on the basis that the injury has meant that [she] has been unable to work and has been in almost constant pain and discomfort".

Pictured: The case was heard by Bailiff Sir Timothy Le Cocq, sitting with Jurats Colette Crill and David Le Heuzé.

The court heard that in the aftermath of her accident, Ms Piechota required care from her older son, who also lived in Jersey, while her husband was cared for in Poland by her daughter and younger son.

Ms Piechota was in significant pain and had not been able to return to work, the court heard.

Expert witnesses agreed that there was no orthopaedic reason for the fact that Ms Piechota's symptoms had lasted so long, and that she should have been able to return to work within three to six months of the accident.

The judgement by Bailiff Sir Timothy Le Cocq, sitting with Jurats Colette Crill and David Le Heuzé, notes that Ms Piechota's condition could not be divorced from other things going on in her life at the time, with her husband having become increasingly infirm and incapable during 2016.

This was described as having "placed significant strain on her family" and that it "must be a very substantial contributory factor to the plaintiff's experience and manifestation of her difficulties".

The court concluded that: "The larger part of the plaintiff's pain and debilitation flows not from the accident, but from her family circumstances" and that there was "a significant element of exaggeration by the plaintiff of her symptoms".

Addressing the question of the sum Ms Piechota should be entitled to, the court ruled as following:

• a sum of £8,820 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity resulting from neck and back injuries sustained;
• loss of earnings for a period of 18 months, based on the average amount Ms Piechota had earned in the year prior to the accident;
• cost of two hours' care per week for three months after the accident, and one hour weekly for the following 15 months; and
• a sum of £800 for medical and travel expenses.

The court expressed the hope that the final sum could be resolved between the legal representatives of both parties.