Gul v McDonagh & Anor [2021] EWHC 97 (QB) (08 January 2021)

Gul v McDonagh & Anor [2021] EWHC 97 (QB) (08 January 2021)

A reasonably careful 13-year-old in the claimant's position should have appreciated the approaching vehicle was travelling unusually fast and either waited for it to pass or kept it under observation while crossing; the claimant's failure to do so amounted to contributory negligence, but the first defendant's blameworthiness was overwhelmingly greater. A 10% reduction in damages is just and equitable.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 97
Parties
Claimant: Saboor Gul (a child proceeding by his Father and Litigation Friend Ghafoor Gul); First Defendant: Mr James McDonagh; Second Defendant: Motor Insurers Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Preliminary Issue of Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Liability apportioned 90:10 in favour of the claimant; 10% reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Standard of Care for Children, Road Traffic Accidents, Assessment of Blameworthiness
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Standard of Care for Children Road Traffic Accidents Assessment of Blameworthiness

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saboor Gul (a child proceeding by his Father and Litigation Friend Ghafoor Gul)

Claimant

Mr James McDonagh

First Defendant

Motor Insurers Bureau

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Preliminary Issue of Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant, a 13-year-old pedestrian, was contributorily negligent in a road traffic accident involving an uninsured driver fleeing police and driving at excessive speed.
  2. 2 What reduction, if any, should be made to the claimant's damages for contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

A reasonably careful 13-year-old in the claimant's position should have appreciated the approaching vehicle was travelling unusually fast and either waited for it to pass or kept it under observation while crossing; the claimant's failure to do so amounted to contributory negligence, but the first defendant's blameworthiness was overwhelmingly greater. A 10% reduction in damages is just and equitable.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned 90:10 in favour of the claimant; 10% reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Damages to be reduced by 10% for contributory negligence.
  • Second defendant (Motor Insurers Bureau) liable to satisfy judgment subject to reduction.