Clark v Farley & Anor [2018] EWHC 1007 (QB) (02 May 2018)

Clark v Farley & Anor [2018] EWHC 1007 (QB) (02 May 2018)

The claimant was not party to a joint criminal enterprise of dangerous driving with either rider; there was no evidence he encouraged or intended to encourage dangerous riding. The defence of ex turpi causa fails. Both riders were negligent and jointly and severally liable. The claimant was contributorily negligent for riding pillion without a helmet and in the circumstances, warranting a 40% reduction in damages.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1007
Parties
Claimant: Mr Liam Clark (a protected party suing by his Mother and litigation friend Nicola Woods); First Defendant: Mr Darren Lee Farley; Second Defendant: Motor Insurers' Bureau; Third Defendant: Ryan Edmonds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; liability established against first and third defendants, with Motor Insurers' Bureau liable to satisfy judgment.
Legal Topics
Ex Turpi Causa, Joint Enterprise, Contributory Negligence, Dangerous Driving, Uninsured Drivers, Liability Apportionment
Tort Law Personal Injury Ex Turpi Causa Joint Enterprise Contributory Negligence Dangerous Driving Uninsured Drivers Liability Apportionment

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Liam Clark (a protected party suing by his Mother and litigation friend Nicola Woods)

Claimant

Mr Darren Lee Farley

First Defendant

Motor Insurers' Bureau

Second Defendant

Ryan Edmonds

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of ex turpi causa bars the claimant's recovery
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was party to a joint criminal enterprise of dangerous driving
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent for riding pillion without a helmet and in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not party to a joint criminal enterprise of dangerous driving with either rider; there was no evidence he encouraged or intended to encourage dangerous riding. The defence of ex turpi causa fails. Both riders were negligent and jointly and severally liable. The claimant was contributorily negligent for riding pillion without a helmet and in the circumstances, warranting a 40% reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; liability established against first and third defendants, with Motor Insurers' Bureau liable to satisfy judgment.

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to recover 60% of assessed damages against first and third defendants, jointly and severally.
  • Motor Insurers' Bureau to satisfy judgment under Uninsured Drivers Agreement.