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

Houghton v Stannard, High Court, 29 October 2003

4 November 2003
The issues

Road Traffic Accident – parked car – obstruction to the highway.

The facts

The Claimant had parked on the inside lane of the A18 on the 23rd December 1998. There was no hard shoulder. He put his hazard lights on. The Claimant suffered from retrograde amnesia and could not remember the accident at Trial. In other proceedings, the Claimant had however stated that shortly before the accident occurred he had difficulties with the car and that he had continued to drive it for a little while before it broke down.

The Defendant admitted that he had seen the Claimant’s vehicle 200 yards away but thought it was moving. He had overtaken other vehicles and returned to the inside lane but then realised that the Claimant’s vehicle was not moving and he had hit it. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant was contributorily negligent in that he had failed to park off road, had stayed in the vehicle rather than walked away from it, and had driven the car when he knew there was a risk of it breaking down.

The decision

1. The Claimant had not continued to drive his car unreasonably. The Claimant’s vehicle was clearly visible and had hazard lights on. There was no evidence that the Claimant could have done anything else. It was not established that the Claimant had got back into the car for any other reason than to try to start it. There was no evidence as to how long he had been in the car before the collision occurred.

2. It was not unreasonable for the Claimant to have continued driving his vehicle.

Judgment for the Claimant in full.

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).


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.


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.


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.


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