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?

Wreford-Smith v Airtours Holidays Limited, Court of Appeal, 5 April 2004

15 April 2004
The issues

Road traffic – collision with oncoming vehicle – reaction time.

The facts

The Claimants (22 in all) were holidaymakers travelling on a coach, which Airtours had contracted to transport them. The accident occurred in Turkey on a dual carriageway. The coach was hit by a taxi coming in the opposite direction, which crossed the central reservation, which was made up of bushes. It was common ground that the taxi driver was mainly to blame, but in these actions the Claimants argued that the driver of the coach was also to blame in that had he been more alert and had he been driving at a slower speed, he might have avoided the taxi. The Judge heard evidence from two witnesses called by the Defendant, who said that whilst the coach driver had been going faster than the speed limit, he had had no chance of avoiding the accident, which had happened too quickly. The coach passengers had given evidence to the effect that there had been between 4 and 5 seconds for the driver to do something. The Judge preferred the Defendant’s evidence and dismissed the claim, finding that the time between the taxi entering the carriageway and colliding with the coach had not been long enough for the driver to react. The Claimants appealed.

The decision

The Judge had taken into account in his summary of the evidence the fact that the burden of proof rested wit the Claimants and that their evidence had been compiled 5 years after the event and mostly in generic terms. The Judge had come to the view that the Claimant’s evidence had been reconstructed. He had preferred the evidence of the Defendant’s witness. These findings were open to the Judge and he was justified in dismissing the claim, although the driver had been driving faster than that permitted by the speed limit, he had not been negligent.

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