Smith v Co-Operative Group Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 725 (25 June 2010)

Smith v Co-Operative Group Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 725 (25 June 2010)

The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Hammond was not negligent, as the standard of care required only reasonable prudence and did not require sounding the horn in the circumstances. The judge's rejection of expert evidence on reaction time was not justified. The counterclaim succeeded because a 13-year-old should reasonably foresee injury to other road users, including drivers, from careless cycling.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 725
Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: Joshua Smith (through his father and litigation friend Peter Smith); Defendant/second Respondent: Co-operative Group Limited; Defendant/appellant: Mark Hammond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment against Mr. Hammond set aside. Judgment entered for Mr. Hammond on the counterclaim for damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Employer's Liability, Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Psychiatric Harm
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Employer's Liability Duty of Care Foreseeability Psychiatric Harm

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua Smith (through his father and litigation friend Peter Smith)

Claimant/first Respondent

Co-operative Group Limited

Defendant/second Respondent

Mark Hammond

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lorry driver (Mr. Hammond) was negligent in failing to sound his horn and thereby caused the accident
  2. 2 Whether the claimant (Joshua Smith) was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Whether a 13-year-old could reasonably foresee injury to a lorry driver and thus be liable in negligence for psychiatric harm

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Hammond was not negligent, as the standard of care required only reasonable prudence and did not require sounding the horn in the circumstances. The judge's rejection of expert evidence on reaction time was not justified. The counterclaim succeeded because a 13-year-old should reasonably foresee injury to other road users, including drivers, from careless cycling.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment against Mr. Hammond set aside. Judgment entered for Mr. Hammond on the counterclaim for damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Set aside judgment against Mr. Hammond
  • Enter judgment for Mr. Hammond on the counterclaim