Fagan v Jeffers [2005] EWCA Civ 380 (09 March 2005)

Fagan v Jeffers [2005] EWCA Civ 380 (09 March 2005)

Both the claimant and defendant were negligent: the defendant failed to exercise sufficient caution when crossing stationary traffic, given the possibility of two-wheeled vehicles passing on the inside, and the claimant failed to exercise adequate caution in proceeding through the junction. The judge's apportionment of equal responsibility was justified by the facts.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 380
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Patrick Feltrim Fagan; Defendant/appellant: George Jeffers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London Civil Justice Centre, Judgment on Liability and Apportionment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents 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

Patrick Feltrim Fagan

Claimant/respondent

George Jeffers

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London Civil Justice Centre, Judgment on Liability and Apportionment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the collision
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of liability between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

Both the claimant and defendant were negligent: the defendant failed to exercise sufficient caution when crossing stationary traffic, given the possibility of two-wheeled vehicles passing on the inside, and the claimant failed to exercise adequate caution in proceeding through the junction. The judge's apportionment of equal responsibility was justified by the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal