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?

Goddard and Another v Greenwood, Court of Appeal

30 October 2002
The issues

Pedestrian – jogger – road traffic accident.

The facts

The Claimants were jogging on the A20 in Dover when they were hit by the Defendant in his vehicle at a junction controlled by traffic lights. He came up behind a lorry, which was stationary at the signals in the nearside lane of 3. Noting that the signals were red, the Defendant moved into the middle lane to go alongside the lorry and as he did so, the lights changed to green and he continued on without stopping. As he passed the lorry, he heard it sound its horn and then saw the joggers crossing the road from his nearside. He did not stop in time and the Claimants suffered serious injuries. The Judge found for the Defendant.

The Claimants appealed.

The decision

1. The Judge was not entitled to find that there was no liability at all.

2. The Defendant’s view of the crossing was obscured by the presence of the lorry in the nearside lane and the fact that the lights changed to green did not give him an absolute right to continue. A reasonably careful driver would have anticipated the possibility of a pedestrian being on the crossing, particularly in view of the fact that the lights had just changed and that the lorry had not moved.

3. The Defendant was therefore primarily liable. The Trial Judge had indicated that had he not found for the Defendant, he could have found contributory negligence of 80%.

That finding could not be interfered with and the Appeal was allowed subject to a finding of 80% contributory negligence against the Claimants.

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