0370 270 6000

Parker v Neil, High Court, 7 November 2003

24 November 2003
The issues

Road Traffic Accident – pedestrian – person in the road.

The facts

The Defendant was driving on a rural road in Essex. The Claimant was lying on the road. The Defendant saw what he thought was an empty bag and did nothing other than take his foot off the accelerator. On nearing the obstacle, he saw that it was a person. He braked but was unable to avoid a collision. The Claimant sued for damages for personal injury.

The decision

1. On the evidence, the Claimant was not visible to the driver of the vehicle before the time at which he applied his brakes.

2. It was unlikely that anyone would be lying prone on a rural road and in the circumstances it was not unreasonable for the driver to have taken no other evasive action than he did on seeing what he perceived to be an obstacle.

Claim dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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