Watson v Skuse [2001] EWCA Civ 1158 (17 July 2001)

Watson v Skuse [2001] EWCA Civ 1158 (17 July 2001)

The defendant was negligent for failing to keep an adequate lookout to his left before moving off, which would likely have revealed the claimant's presence. However, the claimant was the principal author of his own misfortune by crossing against the red pedestrian light, veering towards the lorry, and placing himself in a position where he ought to have known he could not be seen. Apportionment of liability should be 80% to the claimant and 20% to the defendant.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1158
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Alan John Watson; Defendant/appellant: Mark Skuse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Birmingham County Court on Liability Only
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; apportionment of liability varied to 80% claimant, 20% defendant; no order for costs; costs order below not disturbed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Duty of Care, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident Duty of Care Apportionment of Liability

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan John Watson

Claimant/respondent

Mark Skuse

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Birmingham County Court on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to keep an adequate lookout
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was negligent for failing to keep an adequate lookout to his left before moving off, which would likely have revealed the claimant's presence. However, the claimant was the principal author of his own misfortune by crossing against the red pedestrian light, veering towards the lorry, and placing himself in a position where he ought to have known he could not be seen. Apportionment of liability should be 80% to the claimant and 20% to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; apportionment of liability varied to 80% claimant, 20% defendant; no order for costs; costs order below not disturbed.

Orders

  • Apportionment of liability set at 80% to claimant, 20% to defendant
  • No order for costs