Sutherland v Ballard [2002] EWCA Civ 768 (15 May 2002)

Sutherland v Ballard [2002] EWCA Civ 768 (15 May 2002)

The judge's finding that the claimant was in the road for only 1.5 to 2.5 seconds was not outside the range of reasonable conclusions, and there was insufficient time for the defendant to take evasive action; therefore, no negligence was established.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 768
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Lee Andrew Sutherland; Defendant/respondent: Michael John Ballard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Causation
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Negligence Duty of Care Standard of Care Causation

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Andrew Sutherland

Claimant/applicant

Michael John Ballard

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to avoid the claimant who stepped into the road
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was visible to the defendant for a sufficient period to require evasive action

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's finding that the claimant was in the road for only 1.5 to 2.5 seconds was not outside the range of reasonable conclusions, and there was insufficient time for the defendant to take evasive action; therefore, no negligence was established.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused