Whittle v Bennett [2006] EWCA Civ 1538 (01 November 2006)

Whittle v Bennett [2006] EWCA Civ 1538 (01 November 2006)

The defendant's conduct in exceeding the speed limit and not maintaining the recommended distance behind the car in front was not causative of the accident. The claimant's gross negligence in performing an unexpected U-turn in the circumstances was the sole effective cause. The duty to maintain a safe distance was not owed to the claimant in these circumstances, and even if the defendant had complied with the Highway Code, the accident would not have been avoided.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1538
Parties
Claimant/appellant: John Whittle (A Patient by his litigation friend Deborah Heron); Defendant/respondent: James Bennett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Highway Code, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Negligence Causation Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Highway Code +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Whittle (A Patient by his litigation friend Deborah Heron)

Claimant/appellant

James Bennett

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's (Bennett's) driving was negligent and causative of the accident and claimant's injuries
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's (Whittle's) contributory negligence precluded recovery
  3. 3 Whether breach of Highway Code and excessive speed by the defendant were causative of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct in exceeding the speed limit and not maintaining the recommended distance behind the car in front was not causative of the accident. The claimant's gross negligence in performing an unexpected U-turn in the circumstances was the sole effective cause. The duty to maintain a safe distance was not owed to the claimant in these circumstances, and even if the defendant had complied with the Highway Code, the accident would not have been avoided.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Claimant to pay costs