0370 270 6000

Transports Frigoriphiques Laurent v Transportes Olloquiegui

12 June 2000
The issues

Following a Leading Vehicle – Motorway

The facts

An accident occurred between the TFL’s lorry and the TO’s lorry.

The TO’s lorry was accepted as being defective due to the negligence of another party. The defect triggered emergency brakes and caused the lorry to come to an abrupt and immediate halt without the rear brake lights coming on. Between the TO’s lorry and the TFL’s lorry were two private cars. The TFL’s lorry was travelling at about 50 mph. The cars pulled over to the hard shoulder and stopped. The driver of the TFL’s lorry could neither pull over to the hard shoulder where the cars were now stationery or into the right hand fast lane where cars were travelling in the same direction. The lorry began to brake but was unable to come to a halt before colliding heavily with the rear of the TO’s lorry causing damage to the TFL’s lorry and slight damage to the TO’s lorry. The TO argued that the TFL’s driver should have known to keep at a safe distance and speed from the leading vehicle and that the speed that he was travelling at should have been such as to allow him to stop the vehicle in the case of an emergency. The TFL argued that there was such an immediate stop that the accident was inevitable and unavoidable and that no amount of skill or road awareness on behalf of the following driver could have avoided it.

The decision

1. Safe driving speeds and distances were speeds at which a driver was capable of dealing with foreseeable emergencies.

2. The abrupt and immediate halt of the TO’s lorry was not a foreseeable occurrence.

3. The fact that the halt was abrupt and immediate was supported by the fact that the following cars only had to pull onto the hard shoulder rather than apply their brakes.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

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.

View

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.

View

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