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 prove contributory negligence on the part of the claimant; the claimant took reasonable steps to check for traffic but was deceived by the excessive speed of the defendant's vehicle. The care and hydrotherapy regimes proposed by the claimant are reasonable and necessary, and the defendant is obliged to fund them. The issue of statutory funding is adjourned pending further information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1201 (QB)
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 (road Traffic Accident) / High Court Judgment After Trial on Liability and Quantum
Outcome
Claim for contributory negligence dismissed; claimant awarded damages as per approved schedule; care and hydrotherapy costs awarded as claimed; issue of statutory funding adjourned.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment, Care Costs, Hydrotherapy Costs, Statutory Funding, Law Reform (contributory Negligence) Act 1945, Law Reform (personal Injuries) Act 1948
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment Care Costs Hydrotherapy Costs Statutory Funding Law Reform (contributory Negligence) Act 1945 +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
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 (road Traffic Accident) / High Court Judgment After Trial on Liability and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent in the accident
  2. 2 Assessment of future care and case management costs
  3. 3 Assessment of future hydrotherapy costs

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the claimant; the claimant took reasonable steps to check for traffic but was deceived by the excessive speed of the defendant's vehicle. The care and hydrotherapy regimes proposed by the claimant are reasonable and necessary, and the defendant is obliged to fund them. The issue of statutory funding is adjourned pending further information.

Court Disposition

Claim for contributory negligence dismissed; claimant awarded damages as per approved schedule; care and hydrotherapy costs awarded as claimed; issue of statutory funding adjourned.

Orders

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