Goodman v Keeves [2003] EWCA Civ 800 (19 May 2003)

Goodman v Keeves [2003] EWCA Civ 800 (19 May 2003)

The trial judge was entitled to accept the medical evidence that the claimant's head injury would have occurred even if a seat belt had been worn, and to make separate findings for different injuries. The apportionments for contributory negligence were justified by the claimant's age and the unavailability of the seat belt. There is no basis for appellate interference or for revisiting the Froom v Butcher guidelines in this case.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 800
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Louise Goodman (a patient by her mother and litigation friend Shirley Bosworth); Defendant/applicant: Andrew Keeves
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Seat Belt Law, Apportionment of Damages, Passenger Knowledge of Driver's Intoxication
Personal Injury Tort Law Contributory Negligence Seat Belt Law Apportionment of Damages Passenger Knowledge of Driver's Intoxication

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Goodman (a patient by her mother and litigation friend Shirley Bosworth)

Claimant/respondent

Andrew Keeves

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's head injury would have been avoided or reduced by wearing a seat belt
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to make separate findings for different injuries regarding contributory negligence
  3. 3 Whether the apportionment of contributory negligence was appropriate given the claimant's age and circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to accept the medical evidence that the claimant's head injury would have occurred even if a seat belt had been worn, and to make separate findings for different injuries. The apportionments for contributory negligence were justified by the claimant's age and the unavailability of the seat belt. There is no basis for appellate interference or for revisiting the Froom v Butcher guidelines in this case.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused