The court considered the burden of proof of negligence after damage was caused by a car skidding onto the wrong side of the road.
McKenna J said: ‘I, of course, agree that where the respondent”s lorry strikes the plaintiff on the pavement or, as in the present case, moves onto the wrong side of the road into the plaintiff’s path, there is a prima facie case of negligence, and that this case is not displaced merely by proof that the defendant”s car skidded. It must be proved that the skid happened without the defendant”s default. I respectfully disagree with the statement that the skid by itself is neutral. I think that the unexplained and violent skid is in itself evidence of negligence. It seems hardly consistent to hold that the skid which explained the presence of the respondent”s lorry on the pavement or, as here, on the wrong side of the road, is neutral, but that the defendant must fail unless he proves that the neutral event happened without his default. Whether I am right in this or wrong, the conclusion is the same: the defendant fails if he does not prove that the skid which took him to the wrong place happened without his default.’
Judges:
McKenna J
Citations:
[1965] 1 WLR 1454, [1965] 3 All ER 109
Cited by:
Cited – Smith v Fordyce and Another CA 10-Apr-2013
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries from a road accident. The respondent driver had crashed into a wall. The claimant had been his front seat passenger. The judge had found the respndent not to be at fault, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Negligence
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.510138
