A great victory for insurance companies
I don't know British law at all, but it sure seemed implausible that after a long, drawn-out legal battle, a judge could decide a case based on secret information that was never introduced during the trial and which he didn't reveal even then. Looking up the actual case, I don't see anything about skipping chances to take on water. Instead, it seems to have hinged on the fact that the killings went on after the water shortage had ended due to rain. I don't know why the movie industry likes to introduce surprise evidence for dramatic conclusions to court cases when it's so completely unrealistic. Maybe they can't handle the truth!
share