There was a collision in the centre of a road between two vehicles driven in opposite directions. In two hearings, judges had taken different views of the facts.
Held: The court was sympathetic to the judge who had found that the cause of the accident was so speculative on the meagre facts available that the plaintiff, who was an innocent third party, had failed to prove her case. However, the court took the view of the other judge that blame should be apportioned equally as between the two drivers. Romer LJ stated that a finding to that effect was: ‘the reasonable and probable inference to draw from the facts as found . .’
Judges:
Romer LJ
Citations:
[1953] 1 WLR 1472, 97 Sol Jo 861
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Morris v London Iron and Steel Co Ltd CA 1987
In exceptional cases, a judge conscientiously seeking to decide the issues between the parties might have to conclude ‘I just do not know’. . .
Cited – Puffett (A Minor) v Hayfield CA 16-Dec-2005
The defendant appealed from a finding that she had been driving too quickly when a child ran out between parked cars in front of her and was hit. The judge found that she must have been driving at 28mph or more.
Held: ‘I am not prepared to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Negligence
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187187
