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?

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

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