Syred v Powszecnny Zaklad Ubezpieczen (PZU) SA & Ors [2016] EWHC 254 (QB) (12 February 2016)

Syred v Powszecnny Zaklad Ubezpieczen (PZU) SA & Ors [2016] EWHC 254 (QB) (12 February 2016)

Under Polish law, the burden of proof that failure to wear a seat belt caused or aggravated injury remains with the defendants. The evidence did not establish that wearing a seat belt would have reduced the severity of the claimant's head injury or aortic tear, so no reduction in damages is made for those injuries. However, a deduction is appropriate for other injuries that would likely have been avoided if restrained. Non-pecuniary damages are to be assessed with broad judicial discretion, taking into account the Polish Ordinance as a starting point but not as a cap or sole determinant, and considering the claimant's residence in England.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 254
Parties
Claimant: Robert Charles Syred; First Defendant: Powszecnny Zaklad Ubezpieczen (PZU) SA; Second Defendant: Waclaw Bednorz; Third Defendant: HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Trial on Contributory Negligence and Quantum
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; damages awarded subject to reduction for contributory negligence (excluding head injury and aortic tear).
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Assessment of Damages, Foreign Law Application (rome Ii), Burden of Proof, Seat Belt Law, Quantum of Damages
Private International Law Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Assessment of Damages Foreign Law Application (rome Ii) Burden of Proof Seat Belt Law +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Charles Syred

Claimant

Powszecnny Zaklad Ubezpieczen (PZU) SA

First Defendant

Waclaw Bednorz

Second Defendant

HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Trial on Contributory Negligence and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether under Polish law the claimant's failure to wear a seat belt constitutes contributory negligence and to what extent damages should be reduced; assessment of quantum of damages under Polish law; application of burden of proof regarding causation of injuries by failure to wear seat belt; method for assessing non-pecuniary damages under Polish law.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Polish law, the burden of proof that failure to wear a seat belt caused or aggravated injury remains with the defendants. The evidence did not establish that wearing a seat belt would have reduced the severity of the claimant's head injury or aortic tear, so no reduction in damages is made for those injuries. However, a deduction is appropriate for other injuries that would likely have been avoided if restrained. Non-pecuniary damages are to be assessed with broad judicial discretion, taking into account the Polish Ordinance as a starting point but not as a cap or sole determinant, and considering the claimant's residence in England.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; damages awarded subject to reduction for contributory negligence (excluding head injury and aortic tear).

Orders

  • Award of non-pecuniary damages in the sum of 300,000 Zlotys (£50,000) for pain and suffering under Polish law.
  • Reduction in damages for contributory negligence applies only to injuries other than head injury and aortic tear; quantum to be determined accordingly.