Poole v Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development) & Ors

Poole v Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development) & Ors

Neither the second nor third defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant in the circumstances; the second defendant did not supply the kart and was not vicariously liable; the third defendant's relationship and the risk were not such as to impose a duty; the accident was not attributable to any breach of duty.

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 / Liability Trial, Post Evidence Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Supply of Machinery, Negligence, Causation, Contributory Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Product Liability Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Supply of Machinery Negligence Causation +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 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 / Liability Trial, Post Evidence Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant supplied the accident kart and owed a duty of care to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson
  3. 3 Whether the third defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant regarding the risk of entanglement

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the second nor third defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant in the circumstances; the second defendant did not supply the kart and was not vicariously liable; the third defendant's relationship and the risk were not such as to impose a duty; the accident was not attributable to any breach of duty.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed