Streeter v Hughes & Anor [2013] EWHC 2841 (QB) (20 September 2013)

Streeter v Hughes & Anor [2013] EWHC 2841 (QB) (20 September 2013)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the first defendant was driving within his nearside lane and not at excessive speed at the time of the collision. The accident was unavoidable in the circumstances, as the claimant emerged suddenly from behind a parked van, giving the defendant insufficient time to react. There was no negligence on the part of the first defendant. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2841 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Craig Streeter; First Defendant: Mr Darren Lee Hughes; Second Defendant: The Motor Insurers Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Contributory Negligence, Motor Insurance, Damages Assessment
Tort Law Personal Injury Insurance Law Negligence Road Traffic Accident Contributory Negligence Motor Insurance Damages Assessment

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

Parties

Mr Craig Streeter

Claimant

Mr Darren Lee Hughes

First Defendant

The Motor Insurers Bureau

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant was negligent in causing the accident resulting in tetraplegia to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was driving at excessive speed, failed to keep a proper lookout, or was straddling the centre line
  3. 3 Whether the accident was unavoidable and/or caused by the claimant's actions

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the first defendant was driving within his nearside lane and not at excessive speed at the time of the collision. The accident was unavoidable in the circumstances, as the claimant emerged suddenly from behind a parked van, giving the defendant insufficient time to react. There was no negligence on the part of the first defendant. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages against both defendants dismissed
  • No order as to damages payable to claimant