References: [2002] EWCA Civ 801
Links: Bailii
Coram: Latham LJ, Brooke LJ, Hart J
Ratio: The claimant pedestrian had been injured when hit by a car driven by the defendant as she stepped into the roadway. Both parties appealed against the assessment of contributory negligence. The claimant had a blood alcohol level three times that which would have been lawful for a driver.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge’s apportionment could not be characterised as plainly wrong. Latham LJ said: ‘But nonetheless, bearing in mind the fact that this court has consistently imposed on the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that a car is potentially a dangerous weapon, I find it difficult to see how I could properly categorise the judge’s apportionment in this case as plainly wrong.’
An appeal court should not interfere with the judge’s assessment of contributory negligence unless his conclusion is plainly wrong.
Brooke LJ reiterated that it must be borne in mind always that a motor car is a potentially lethal instrument.
Statutes: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Liddell v Middleton CA (Times 17-Jul-95, (1996) PIQR 36)
A husband and wife crossed a road. The wife, appreciating that the danger from the traffic, ran across. The husband stood in the middle of the road and then went ahead, but was struck by a vehicle and injured. He was significantly affected by . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Toropdar v D QBD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2997 (QB))
. . - Cited – Stoddart v Perucca CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 290)
The claimant was injured crossing a road when approached by the defendant’s campervan. The judge had taken avccount of another driver who said that he had slowed down anticipating the emergence of a second horse and rider (the claimant), but the . . - Cited – Phethean-Hubble v Coles CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 349)
The claimant cyclist suffered serious injury in a collision with a car driven by the defendant. The defendant appealed against a finding that he was two thirds responsible. The case for the injured cyclist was that the motorist was going too fast. . . - Cited – Sinclair v Joyner QBD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 1800 (QB))
The claimant cyclist sought damages from the defendant motorist after a collision in which she was severely injured. They approached each other on a narrow lane. The claimant said that the defendant did not pull over as much as she should, and the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 185856
The post Lunt v Khelifa: CA 22 May 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.