MyClaim - We're here to help

February 2010 Case Law Reports

Back to News

Geoffrey Manktelow v Dixons PLC

The Claimant in this case received £75,000 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident in April 2007.  He was 57 at the date of the accident and was left unable to sit or walk for long periods, suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and had to leave his job due to difficulties lifting with his right arm.  The award was reduced by 15% for contributory negligence as he was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident.

William Thomas Robert Stanton v Lynne Denise Collinson

This case concerned an appeal against a decision where it was held that there had been no contributory negligence by a boy who had suffered major brain damage in a car accident.  The boy had not been wearing his seat belt and also had another person on his lat.  Expert road engineers for each party had agreed that the wearing of a seat belt would have been unlikely to completely prevent a serious head injury.  No medical evidence was sought to provide any further opinion about the consequences of not wearing a seat belt.

The appeal was dismissed and it was held however that this did not mean that medical evidence was required in every seat belt or head injury case and each case would depend on its facts and the state of the other evidence.

Trevor Frost v David Frank Oldfield

The Claimant and Defendant were involved in an accident where their motorcycles had collided head on whilst riding on opposite sides of the road towards each other.  There were no eye witnesses to the accident and both parties claimed that the other party had been on the wrong side of the road.  The Defendant contended that it was open to the court to decide that both experts were wrong and the accident occurred due to both parties being too close to the centre line and hit each other. 

It was held on the evidence that the impact had occurred on the Claimant’s side of the road and the Defendant was therefore entirely liable for the accident.

(1) Henry Webster (2) Joseph Webster (3) Elizabeth Webster (4) Roger Durnford v Ridgeway Foundation School

The Claimant claimed damages from the Defendant following an assault which took place on the Defendant’s premises leaving him with head injuries.  The Claimant’s mother, step-father and brother claimed damages for post-traumatic stress disorder for witnessing the aftermath of the assault.

The Claimant had arranged to meet one of his attackers, who also attended the Defendant’s school, for a fight on the Defendant’s premises after school had ended.  The attacker had informed other people about the fight who also attended, one of whom brought a claw hammer with him.  The Claimant was hit with the hammer by an attacker who was an adult and not a school pupil and suffered a head injury as a result.  The Claimant claimed that the Defendant was negligent in failing to protect the Claimant and failing to keep the site secure.

It was held that although the Defendant had a duty to ensure the Claimant was reasonably safe for a reasonable period after the end of school, whilst still on the Defendant’s premises, they had not been negligent.  The Claimant failed to show that his injuries would have been avoided if the site had been secure as they were caused by an adult who was not under the control of the school.  The location of the attack did not cause or contribute to the injury sustained.

(1)B (2)E (3)F (4)G (5)H (6)J (7)K v Centre Islands Hotels

This was a case where a family of 7 were awarded damages after suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning.  None of the Claimant’s suffered permanent physical injuries. However one woman suffered from anxiety disorder.  The Claimant’s ages ranged from 3 weeks old to 74 years old at the time of the injury and they were awarded sums ranging from £1,500 to £6,750.

Diana Smith v Youth Justice Board for England and Wales and Another

Where a child had died as a result of the Claimant and her colleagues restraining him with an approved restraint, it was upheld on appeal that she was not entitled to damages for post traumatic stress disorder for being involved in the event.  It was held that the responsibility for the child’s death rested on the Claimant with others, as the restraint technique had been used unreasonably and excessively.  The Judge stated that it would be unjust to allow the Claimant to recover damages for the effect the incident had on her.