MyClaim - We're here to help

December 2009 Case Law Reports

Back to News

Andrew Howe v (1) Wayne Houlton (2) Marshall Barry Ltd (3) Norwich Union Insurance Ltd

The Claimant claimed damages for a road traffic accident during which he was stood behind the open door of his car when the Defendant, driving an articulated lorry, had collided with him.  The Claimant claimed the accident had been caused by the negligent driving of the Defendant.  The Defendant however, claimed that the accident had been caused or contributed to by the Claimant parking within the controlled area of a pedestrian crossing, namely on zig-zag lines by the crossing..

It was held that the Defendant’s vehicle was probably approximately 36 metres away from the impact point when the Claimant had opened his door.  The Defendant was found negligent for failing to see and avoid the open car door and the Claimant causing injury.  The Claimant’s parking, although illegal in it’s position, would not have made any material difference to the accident.

Robert Eric Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd (Wincanton Logistics Ltd)

The Claimant suffered an injury at work resulting in his leg being amputated for which the Defendant was liable.  The Claimant subsequently suffered a second accident during which he was filing his car at a petrol station without requesting help, using sticks or his prosthesis resulting in him tripping and falling over.  This second accident resulted in the Claimant being permanently confined to a wheelchair.  The Defendant was held liable for the result of both accidents.

On appeal the Defendant argued that the Claimant’s contributory conduct towards the second accident had been below the standard of unreasonableness required to break the chain of causation.  It was held that like the amputation, the second accident had been an unexpected but real consequence of the first accident and the Defendant was liable.

Sughra Sulaman v (1) Axa Insurance PLC (2) Direct Line Insurance PLC

The Defendant had been found to have lied whilst giving evidence.  It was held on appeal that it had been within the judge’s discretion, on the facts of the case, to reduce a successful defendant’s entitlement to costs by two thirds.

It was said that the Claimant had brought what was inevitably a loss-making action to establish the principle that fraudsters could not assume that they would get away with fraud.

Clare Hale v Daniel Burridge

This case, which settled in October 2009, concerned a Claimant who suffered multiple injuries, including a miscarriage, as a result of a road traffic accident.  At the time of the accident the Claimant was 5 weeks pregnant with her second child.  She had registered the pregnancy with her GP and had informed family and friends. 

As a result of the injury she suffered a psychological reaction involving anxiety and tearfulness.  Liability was admitted and the Claimant obtained £10,759 in damages.

(1) Geoffrey Glaister (2) Geraldine Glaister (3) Natalie Glaister v Appelby-in-Westmoreland Town Council

Where the Claimant had been injured at a horse fair, the local authority did not owe a duty to the Claimant to ensure public liability was in place to cover such an incident.

On appeal it was held that there was no special relationship between the local authority and the individual in the circumstances for the duty of care to arise.