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?

North v TNT Express Ltd, Court of Appeal, 25 May 2001

29 May 2001
The issues

Road Traffic Accident – Breaking Sharply – Alcohol Induced Incident

The facts

At 1.00 am on 18th March 1995, S employed by the Defendant firm was driving an articulated lorry. He had with him another employee, D.

S had to follow a diversion off the A3 which took him through Weybridge. On the way he passed a wine bar which had just closed for the evening. The Claimant and a group of friends who had been drinking at the wine bar were standing by a roundabout nearby waiting for a taxi to pick them up. As the lorry headed towards the second exit of the roundabout, the Claimant stepped into the road in front of the lorry. He said he asked for a lift home and that S refused. N then climbed onto the front of the lorry and stood on the bumper and held on to the windscreen wipers. S asked N twice to get down but N refused. S then drove off slowly. N said S drove off in a jerking manner braking and accelerating by turns. After a short distance N fell off and was struck by the lorry.

The Judge found as a fact that N had fallen because he had been pulling the windscreen wiper off and had been successful. The Judge also decided that the driver should not have been driving at all with N hanging on.

The Defendant appealed.

The decision

S had been put in a difficult situation by N and it was hard for him to know what to do. The Judge applied too harsh a standard of care deciding what he had done was reasonable. If he had been braking sharply then that might have been a breach of duty but the Judge did not find this to be the case. All the circumstances had to be taken into account in deciding whether what S had done was reasonable. N had been drunk and had acted irresponsibly. It was late at night. S had little alternative other than to drive off. The event itself had occurred as a result of N’s stupid act. There was no breach of duty and the Defendant could not be held liable.

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