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 enterprise of dangerous driving with either rider; there was no evidence he intended to encourage or assist dangerous riding. The defence of ex turpi causa does not apply. Both riders were negligent and jointly and severally liable. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to wear a helmet and for accepting a pillion ride in the circumstances; a total deduction of 40% is appropriate.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1007 (QB)
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 / Liability Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; judgment for claimant subject to 40% deduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Ex Turpi Causa, Joint Enterprise, Contributory Negligence, Dangerous Driving, Uninsured Drivers, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Insurance Law Ex Turpi Causa Joint Enterprise Contributory Negligence Dangerous Driving Uninsured Drivers +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 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 / Liability Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of ex turpi causa applies to bar 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 enterprise of dangerous driving with either rider; there was no evidence he intended to encourage or assist dangerous riding. The defence of ex turpi causa does not apply. Both riders were negligent and jointly and severally liable. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to wear a helmet and for accepting a pillion ride in the circumstances; a total deduction of 40% is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; judgment for claimant subject to 40% deduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • First and third defendants jointly and severally liable for 60% of claimant's damages to be assessed.
  • Second defendant (MIB) to satisfy judgment under Uninsured Drivers Agreement.