The claimant cyclist sought damages for severe personal injury. He was walking or riding his cycle through some roadworks by the roadside, and fell out through roadside barriers into the path of a car. The defendants admitted that the path was less wide than it should have been, but said he should not have been riding on the pavement.
Held: The defendants were wholly responsible. They had created a very hazardous multi-layered trap across a kerb for all pedestrians, and: ‘it is only with the benefit of cruel hindsight that it might be said the Claimant should have risked the danger on the road or the sanctuary of another pavement rather than this one. He should certainly not be held at all ‘responsible’ for electing for the wrong option when faced with such a dreadful hazard. Neither should he be criticised for momentary inadvertence, loss of balance or misjudgement whilst trying to negotiate this particular hazard.’
Simon Brown QC J
[2010] EWHC B11 (QB)
Bailii
Highway Act 1835 72, Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lee v Williams CA 23-Jan-2001
The claimant cyclist had been injured. He had been riding along the pavement, but was hit by the defendant as he crossed an access road. Sight lines were restricted. The driver had concentrated on traffic from his right with which he was to merge, . .
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 by:
Principal hearing – Kotula v EDF Energy Networks (EPN) Plc and Others QBD 17-Jun-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Negligence
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.416771