Lac & Ors v Clayton

Lac & Ors v Clayton

The claimants were not negligent in remaining by their vehicle after the accident, given the absence of an obviously safer alternative, the shock of the incident, and the fact that the Highway Code did not directly apply. The judge's finding of no contributory negligence was upheld.

Parties
Respondents/claimants: Minh Lac & Ors; Appellant/defendant: Clayton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Highway Code Application

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 & Ors

Respondents/claimants

Clayton

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were guilty of contributory negligence for failing to move to a safer position after a road traffic accident

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were not negligent in remaining by their vehicle after the accident, given the absence of an obviously safer alternative, the shock of the incident, and the fact that the Highway Code did not directly apply. The judge's finding of no contributory negligence was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No contributory negligence found against the claimants
  • Original judgment upheld