0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

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?

Barlow v Smith, Queen's Bench Division, 15 May 2000

1 June 2000
The issues

Pedestrians Fooling around – Drivers standard of care

The facts

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.

The decision

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.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up