The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving his car. She was in Blackpool, and drunk and wandering in the highway. The defendant was himself at or near the drink driving limit. She appealed against a finding that she was 60% to blame.
Held: Courts have consistently required drivers to recognise that they control dangerous machinery. It would be rare for a driver not to have greater responsibilty than a pedestrian for injury. In this case the claimant would be held 40% responsible.
Lady Justice Hale said: ‘The potential ‘destructive disparity’ between the parties can readily be taken into account as an aspect of blameworthiness’ and ‘It is rare indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver unless the pedestrian has suddenly moved into the path of an oncoming vehicle. That is not this case. The Court has consistently imposed upon the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon’.
Hale LJ said that the court could not avoid comparing the two parties: ‘We also accept that this court is always reluctant to interfere with the trial judge’s judgment of what apportionment between the parties is ‘just and equitable’ under the 1945 Act. But a finding as to which, if either, of the parties was the more responsible for the damage is different from a finding as to the precise extent of a less than 50 per cent contribution. There is a qualitative difference between a finding of 60 per cent contribution and a finding of 40 per cent which is not so apparent in the quantitive difference between 40 per cent and 20 per cent. It is rare indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver unless the pedestrian has suddenly moved into the path of an oncoming vehicle. That is not this case. The court ‘has consistently imposed upon the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon’: Latham LJ in Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801.’
Judges:
Ward, Waller, Hale LJJ
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1107, Times 01-Sep-2003, [2004] RTR 115
Links:
Statutes:
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd CA 1949
A plaintiff brought an action for damages for personal injury against the drivers of two cars.
Held: There are two aspects to apportioning responsibility between a plaintiff and defendant in an action for negligence, the respective causative . .
Cited – Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .
Cited – Chapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL 26-Nov-1969
The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was . .
Cited – Fitzgerald v Lane HL 14-Jul-1988
The plaintiff crossed road at a pelican crossing. The lights were against him but one car had stopped. As he passed that car he was struck by another in the second lane and again by a car coming the other way. The judge had held the three equally . .
Cited – Brown v Thompson CA 1968
A car driver drove into the back of a stationary lorry but was nevertheless held only 20% responsible.
Held: A court of appeal should only exceptionally interfere with a judge’s apportinment of responsibility for an accident.
Winn LJ . .
See also – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Cited by:
See also – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Cited – Bailey v Warre CA 7-Feb-2006
The claimant had been severely injured in a road traffic accident. His claim was compromised and embodied in a court order, but later a question was raised as to whether he had had mental capacity at the time to make the compromise he had.
Cited – Phethean-Hubble v Coles CA 21-Mar-2012
The claimant cyclist suffered serious injury in a collision with a car driven by the defendant. The defendant appealed against a finding that he was two thirds responsible. The case for the injured cyclist was that the motorist was going too fast. . .
Adopted – Rehill v Rider Holdings Ltd CA 16-May-2012
The claimant had been injured, being hit by the defendant’s bus. . .
Cited – Ayres v Odedra QBD 18-Jan-2013
The claimant sought damages for serious personal injury, saying that the defendant had deliberately or recklessly driven at him as a pedestrian, knocking him over. The defendant had been tried and acquitted of motoring offences. He said that the . .
Cited – Jackson v Murray and Another SC 18-Feb-2015
Child not entirely free of responsibility
The claimant child, left a school bus and stepped out from behind it into the path of the respondent’s car. She appealed against a finding of 70% contributory negligence.
Held: Her appeal succeeded (Majority, Lord Hodge and Lord Wilson . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Damages
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184900