Wakeling v McDonagh & Anor [2007] EWHC 1201 (QB) (25 May 2007)

Wakeling v McDonagh & Anor [2007] EWHC 1201 (QB) (25 May 2007)

The defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence; the claimant took reasonable steps to check the road and was deceived by the defendant's excessive speed. The care and hydrotherapy regimes proposed by the claimant are reasonable and necessary given the severity of the injuries and the need to maximise the claimant's quality of life. The defendant is liable for the full agreed damages and for the additional costs of the care and hydrotherapy regimes as determined.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1201
Parties
Claimant: Adam Joseph Wakeling (a patient proceeding by his mother and litigation friend Dominique Carpenter); First Defendant: Michael McDonagh; Second Defendant: The Motor Insurers' Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim for Damages / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for contributory negligence dismissed; damages awarded as claimed subject to detailed assessment of care and hydrotherapy costs.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment, Care Costs, Hydrotherapy Costs, Statutory Funding, Road Traffic Accident
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment Care Costs Hydrotherapy Costs Statutory Funding Road Traffic Accident

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Joseph Wakeling (a patient proceeding by his mother and litigation friend Dominique Carpenter)

Claimant

Michael McDonagh

First Defendant

The Motor Insurers' Bureau

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim for Damages / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent in the road traffic accident
  2. 2 Quantum of damages for future care and case management
  3. 3 Quantum of damages for future hydrotherapy costs

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence; the claimant took reasonable steps to check the road and was deceived by the defendant's excessive speed. The care and hydrotherapy regimes proposed by the claimant are reasonable and necessary given the severity of the injuries and the need to maximise the claimant's quality of life. The defendant is liable for the full agreed damages and for the additional costs of the care and hydrotherapy regimes as determined.

Court Disposition

Claim for contributory negligence dismissed; damages awarded as claimed subject to detailed assessment of care and hydrotherapy costs.

Orders

  • No reduction for contributory negligence.
  • Defendant to pay agreed damages of £2,905,500.