Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Pedestrians Fooling around – Drivers standard of care
A High Court Judge ordered Judgement to be entered against the Claimant with a reduction of 50% for contributory negligence. The Claimant has been severely injured crossing a road when struck by a car driven by the Defendant. The Defendant had driven at 25 mph through a green light. The Claimant had been larking around at the side of the road with a number of friends. The Claimant had run out into the road. The Judge found that the Defendant had not been keeping a proper lookout and accordingly had been negligent but the Claimant had been 50% responsible.
The Defendant Appealed.
1. There was no doubt that the Defendant had failed to keep a proper lookout and had been negligent. However, the issue was whether the negligence had been causative of the accident.
2. On the Judges findings the car had been too close to the point of impact for the driver to have taken any action to avoid the collision.
3. The Judge had asked himself whether a reasonably careful driver would have seen the Claimant at the side of the road before he had run out and would have anticipated that he might do so. This issue however was contrary to findings made by the Judge and in particular the fact that he had said he was not concerned with what had been happening before the Claimant ran out.
4. It was an unrealistic demand to be placed on a driver travelling at 25 mph through a green traffic light on an A class road to say that he should have anticipated that one of the men including the Claimant might run out. Appeal allowed.
Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.
View
On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.
Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).
The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.
The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up