Burridge v Airwork Ltd

Burridge v Airwork Ltd

The evidence did not establish that the claimant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. It would impose too high a standard to require the cyclist to take further precautions in these circumstances. The defendants did not prove facts sufficient to establish contributory negligence.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Burridge; Defendants/appellants: Airwork Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Standard of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident Standard of Care

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Burridge

Claimant/respondent

Airwork Limited

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent in a road traffic accident involving a cyclist and a minibus door
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons for rejecting contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the claimant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. It would impose too high a standard to require the cyclist to take further precautions in these circumstances. The defendants did not prove facts sufficient to establish contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal assessed at £24,917.25 including VAT