Stotardt v Selkent Bus Co & Anor [2003] EWHC 2135 (QB) (18 July 2003)

Stotardt v Selkent Bus Co & Anor [2003] EWHC 2135 (QB) (18 July 2003)

The court found that Mr Kundi did not perform a U-turn and was driving lawfully. The evidence did not support the defence of inevitable accident; the medical explanations for the bus driver's conduct were speculative and not established on the balance of probabilities. The accident was caused by the bus driver's negligence in taking the bend too fast and failing to keep proper control, resulting in the collision and injury to the claimant. Judgment was entered for the claimant against the first defendant (Selkent), and the claim against the second defendant (Mr Kundi) failed.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2135 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Michelle Stotardt; First Defendant: Stagecoach Selkent Ltd (formerly Selkent Bus Co); Second Defendant (part 20 Defendant): Valdir Kundi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Tort (personal Injury) / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant; judgment for the second defendant in the Part 20 proceedings and against the claimant.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Inevitable Accident, Automatism, Road Traffic Accident, Burden of Proof
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Inevitable Accident Automatism Road Traffic Accident Burden of Proof

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Stotardt

Claimant

Stagecoach Selkent Ltd (formerly Selkent Bus Co)

First Defendant

Valdir Kundi

Second Defendant (part 20 Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Tort (personal Injury) / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant (Mr Kundi) performed a U-turn and caused or contributed to the accident
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant (Selkent/Stagecoach) is liable for the claimant's injuries or can establish a defence of inevitable accident due to a medical event affecting the bus driver

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Kundi did not perform a U-turn and was driving lawfully. The evidence did not support the defence of inevitable accident; the medical explanations for the bus driver's conduct were speculative and not established on the balance of probabilities. The accident was caused by the bus driver's negligence in taking the bend too fast and failing to keep proper control, resulting in the collision and injury to the claimant. Judgment was entered for the claimant against the first defendant (Selkent), and the claim against the second defendant (Mr Kundi) failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant; judgment for the second defendant in the Part 20 proceedings and against the claimant.

Orders

  • First defendant (Selkent) held liable for the claimant's injuries.
  • Claim against second defendant (Mr Kundi) dismissed.