Read v Nominal Defendant

The plaintiff, a motorcyclist, brought an action against a nominal defendant, asserting that a road accident causing him serious injuries was caused by the negligent driving of another vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that he had to swerve to avoid a vehicle that was driving on the wrong side of the road, resulting in a crash into a culvert. The driver of the other vehicle could not be located, and the nominal defendant denied the plaintiff's claims, asserting that there was no other vehicle. The plaintiff sought damages for his injuries, pain, and suffering.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's account of the accident was true and whether the plaintiff had acted negligently, contributing to the accident. The court also needed to consider whether a prior consistent statement made by the plaintiff could be admitted as evidence to counter the defendant's claim that the plaintiff's account was a recent invention. The plaintiff sought to introduce a prior consistent statement as evidence, arguing that it was relevant to rebut the defendant's claim.

The court found that the plaintiff's account of the accident was credible and that the plaintiff had not acted negligently, contributing to the accident. The court held that the prior consistent statement was admissible as it was relevant to rebut the defendant's claim that the plaintiff's account was a recent invention. The court found that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and awarded the plaintiff damages of four million dollars ($4,000,000).