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

Arneson v Heffey, Court of Appeal

16 July 2002
The issues

RTA – motorbike – emergency.

The facts

The Defendant was driving on the M54, a two-lane motorway. Her speed was about 70 mph and she was in the fast lane. She suffered a blow out to one of her tyres. She slowed, indicated, intending to stop on the hard shoulder. The traffic was “reasonably heavy”. She switched on hazard lights, eventually stopping in the middle of the offside lane. The driver behind saw the manoeuvre and pulled into the nearside lane to avoid the car. The car behind that car also missed the stationary car, but only narrowly. The car behind that car, in turn pulled into the nearside lane. Two motorbikes passed the driver of that car. One steered around the Defendant’s car. The other, ridden by the Claimant, crashed into it. The Judge found that the Defendant had had time to pull into the hard shoulder (because the other drivers had had time to avoid her) or that she should have stopped the car as near as possible to the central crash barrier. The Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. The only merit in the Judge’s Judgment was its brevity.

2. There was no evidence to justify the Judge’s conclusion that the Defendant had had time to move across to the hard shoulder. His reasoning was fallacious.

3. The suggestion that the Defendant should have pulled up against the central crash barrier had never been pleaded.

4. If the Judge had properly analysed the evidence, he would not have found that the Defendant had had the time to move the car that the Judge concluded she had. Too high a standard had been placed by the Judge on the Defendant. The Defendant had been presented with an emergency and she had reacted as best she could.

Appeal allowed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

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