Lac & Ors v Clayton [2009] EWCA Civ 106 (03 February 2009)

Lac & Ors v Clayton [2009] EWCA Civ 106 (03 February 2009)

The claimants were not contributorily negligent because, given their shocked state and the lack of an obviously safer alternative, it was not unreasonable for them to remain by their vehicle. The Highway Code did not directly apply, and its principles did not impose a higher standard than that already considered by the judge.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 106
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Minh Lac; Respondent/claimant: Phi Ly; Respondent/claimant: Duong; Appellant/defendant: Clayton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Highway Code Interpretation
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident Highway Code Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minh Lac

Respondent/claimant

Phi Ly

Respondent/claimant

Duong

Respondent/claimant

Clayton

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants were contributorily negligent for failing to move to a safer position after a road traffic accident
  2. 2 Applicability and relevance of the Highway Code to non-motorway accidents

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were not contributorily negligent because, given their shocked state and the lack of an obviously safer alternative, it was not unreasonable for them to remain by their vehicle. The Highway Code did not directly apply, and its principles did not impose a higher standard than that already considered by the judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No finding of contributory negligence against the claimants
  • Original judgment upheld