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?

Lee v Williams

5 March 2001
The issues

Contributory Negligence Of A Cyclist Failing To Dismount At A Junction

The facts

The Claimant was injured at the mouth of an access road as the defendant emerged from the access road in his car. The Claimant has been cycling along the pavement of the main road and had intended to cross the access road. It was a difficult junction – it was not well sighted for drivers coming from the access road or for pedestrians wanting to cross. The Judge at first instance found that the Defendant solely to blame for failing to keep a proper lookout. He found that the Claimant had not been negligent on the basis that he took appropriate care at a difficult junction to check that it was safe to cross.

The Defendant appealed.

The decision

The Claimant had accepted that he should not have been cycling on the pavement but the Judge had found that this made no difference to the accident and that the Claimant was really in the position of a pedestrian. The Court of Appeal do not accept that conclusion.

The Claimant had stopped with his bicycle projecting two or three feet into the road. This made him more vulnerable than a pedestrian. He had not dismounted and had therefore inhibited himself from getting himself or the bicycle out of the path of the collision. Liability would be apportioned 60% against the Defendant and 40% against the Claimant.

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