Howe v Houlton & Ors [2009] EWHC 3344 (QB) (18 December 2009)

Howe v Houlton & Ors [2009] EWHC 3344 (QB) (18 December 2009)

The defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and in driving too close to the parked Peugeot, causing the collision and severe injury to the claimant. The evidence did not support the defendant's assertion that oncoming traffic forced him to move left. The claimant was outside the vehicle and visible. There was no contributory negligence by the claimant established on the facts.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3344
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Howe; First Defendant: Wayne Houlton; Second Defendant: Marshall Barry Ltd; Third Defendant: Norwich Union Insurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability (split Trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on liability
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Vicarious Liability Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Howe

Claimant

Wayne Houlton

First Defendant

Marshall Barry Ltd

Second Defendant

Norwich Union Insurance Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability (split Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in driving the lorry and caused the accident
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant was vicariously liable for the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and in driving too close to the parked Peugeot, causing the collision and severe injury to the claimant. The evidence did not support the defendant's assertion that oncoming traffic forced him to move left. The claimant was outside the vehicle and visible. There was no contributory negligence by the claimant established on the facts.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on liability

Orders

  • Defendants found liable for the accident
  • Damages to be assessed at a later hearing