Poole v Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development) & Ors [2013] EWHC 2375 (QB) (05 August 2013)

Poole v Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development) & Ors [2013] EWHC 2375 (QB) (05 August 2013)

Chequered Flag Karting Limited did not supply the accident kart to the third defendant; ownership and supply remained with Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson in their personal capacities. There was no evidence of transfer of asset to the second defendant, nor any contract of supply or duty of care arising from such contract. The second defendant was not vicariously liable for Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson. The claimant's case against the second defendant fails.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2375 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sophie Poole; First Defendant: Simon Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development); Second Defendant: Chequered Flag Karting Limited; Third Defendant: David Abbott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Liability Trial (split Trial, Post Evidence, Judgment)
Outcome
Claim against Chequered Flag Karting Limited dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Supply of Machinery, Regulatory Compliance, Contributory Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Product Liability Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Supply of Machinery Regulatory Compliance Contributory Negligence

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophie Poole

Claimant

Simon Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development)

First Defendant

Chequered Flag Karting Limited

Second Defendant

David Abbott

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Liability Trial (split Trial, Post Evidence, Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Chequered Flag Karting Limited supplied the accident kart to the third defendant
  2. 2 Whether Chequered Flag Karting Limited owed a duty of care to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether Chequered Flag Karting Limited was vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson

Ratio Decidendi

Chequered Flag Karting Limited did not supply the accident kart to the third defendant; ownership and supply remained with Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson in their personal capacities. There was no evidence of transfer of asset to the second defendant, nor any contract of supply or duty of care arising from such contract. The second defendant was not vicariously liable for Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson. The claimant's case against the second defendant fails.

Court Disposition

Claim against Chequered Flag Karting Limited dismissed

Orders

  • No liability found against Chequered Flag Karting Limited
  • Claimant's case against second defendant fails