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?

Wells v Trinder CA

16 July 2002
The issues

RTA – pedestrian – contributory negligence.

The facts

This was the Defendant’s Appeal against Judgment in favour of the Claimant at Trial. The Claimant had been crossing the road which was 12 yards wide, having just been dropped at a bus stop. She was hit by the Defendant’s car. The Defendant admitted that he had seen a car and two people standing by it, but did not slow down because there was no indication of any danger. He said that he first saw the Claimant when she was running across the road wearing dark clothes 10 metres away from him and that he could not avoid a collision. The Judge rejected his evidence and found that he was negligent in that he was driving too fast and should not have been driving with merely dipped headlights. He found no contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant.

The decision

1. The Judge could not be criticised with regard to his finding of primary liability in respect of the Defendant’s speed.

2. He was entitled to find that the Defendant should have been driving with full beam, since evidence had been given that there were long spells along the road in which there were no oncoming vehicles. A prudent driver should always have full lights on, unless he was at risk of blinding oncoming vehicles.

3. On the facts, it was clear that the Claimant should have seen the oncoming vehicle and should have taken steps to try and avoid the collision. The Claimant could not be acquitted of all responsibility. She had a duty to ensure that there was a clear road to her left and right. Appeal allowed to the extent that Claimant will be found 25% liable for her injuries.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.


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