The claimants sought damages for personal injuries after a crash in a Land Rover maintained by the defendants. The defendants appealed findings of negligence in failing properly to inflate the rear tyres, in continuing despite the danger, and poor overtaking. A further fault was identified in that dirt in the front wheel had led to a split in the inner tube causing that to deflate on the journey.
Held: ‘In the real world, that in which the man on the Clapham omnibus used to operate, nobody would sensibly suggest that Mr Curran should have checked the correct tyre pressures of a company vehicle, seemingly in immaculate condition and, which he knew, was maintained by a Land Rover employee who was highly conscientious about the condition of the vehicle. ‘ The deflation of the front tyre was the precipitating cause, and would not have been noticed until the execution of a left turn. It was hard to choose between the ‘causative potency’ of the activating or precipitating cause and that of the dangerous and underlying instability at the rear to which it gave life. Liability was apportioned equally between the companies providing and maintaining the car.
Judges:
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld The Right Honourable Lord Justice Sedley and The Right Honourable Lord Justice Keene
Citations:
Times 02-Nov-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1249
Links:
Statutes:
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 27(1)(b), Road Traffic Act 1988 41A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tan Chye Choo and Ors v Chong Kew Moi PC 1970
Statutory obligations may indicate a standard of care, breach of which would be evidence of negligence. . .
Cited – Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co Ltd CA 1923
A breach of the regulation does not give rise to an action for damages. The distinction between misfeasance and non-feasance should no longer have significance. Atkin LJ said: ‘one who cannot be otherwise specified than as a person using the . .
Cited – Franklin v The Gramophone Company Ltd CA 1948
Compliance with statutory obligations, which may be of limited scope, does not necessarily absolve a defendant from liability in negligence. It is only if the section is ambiguous, unclear or open to two reasonable interpretations that its penal . .
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 – Madden v Quirk QBD 1989
The plaintiff had been riding as a passenger in the open part of a pick up truck which crashed.
Held: The passenger contributed significantly (85%) to his own injuries by choosing an unsafe mode of travel. . .
Cited – Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214647