0370 270 6000

Clenshaw -v- Tanner (J)

2 April 2002
The issues

RTA – cyclist – contributory negligence.

The facts

The Claimant was cycling in a cycle lane on a main road. He was travelling faster than the cars queuing to his offside. A vehicle ahead of him turned left across the cycle lane to go into a petrol station. The Claimant hit the rear of the vehicle and was injured. The Judge found that the Defendant’s vehicle slowed before turning and that the driver indicated in good time; the Claimant had his head down as he approached the turning and that the Defendant’s vehicle was well into the station turning slowly when it was hit by the Claimant.

The decision

1. The Defendant had crossed the cycle lane without making sure that it was safe to do so.

2. The Claimant had failed to see or had ignored Defendant’s signal.

3. Liability was established against the Defendant but Claimant was liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50%.

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.



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.


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.


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