Poole v Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development) & Ors [2013] EWHC 2375 (QB) (05 August 2013)

Poole v Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development) & Ors [2013] EWHC 2375 (QB) (05 August 2013)

The second defendant did not supply the accident kart to the third defendant; ownership and supply remained with Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson in their personal capacities. There was no evidence of transfer of the kart as a company asset. The second defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant and was not vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson. The relevant safety regulations did not apply to private individuals supplying second-hand racing karts. Thus, the claim against the second defendant fails.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2375
Parties
Claimant: Sophie Poole; First Defendant: Simon Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development); Second Defendant: Chequered Flag Karting Limited; Third Defendant: David Abbott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Negligence / Judgment After Split Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim against the second defendant dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Product Safety, Supply of Machinery Regulations, Recreational Vehicle Safety
Tort Law Personal Injury Product Liability Negligence Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Product Safety Supply of Machinery Regulations +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophie Poole

Claimant

Simon Wright (t/a Simon Wright Racing Development)

First Defendant

Chequered Flag Karting Limited

Second Defendant

David Abbott

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Negligence / Judgment After Split Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant (Chequered Flag Karting Limited) supplied the accident kart to the third defendant and owed a duty of care to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson in supplying the kart
  3. 3 Whether Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson owed a duty of care to the claimant as a future user of the kart

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant did not supply the accident kart to the third defendant; ownership and supply remained with Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson in their personal capacities. There was no evidence of transfer of the kart as a company asset. The second defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant and was not vicariously liable for the actions of Mr Shaw and Mr Jackson. The relevant safety regulations did not apply to private individuals supplying second-hand racing karts. Thus, the claim against the second defendant fails.

Court Disposition

Claim against the second defendant dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against Chequered Flag Karting Limited is dismissed.