Gilman v UPS Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 2341 (TCC) (30 July 2013)

Gilman v UPS Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 2341 (TCC) (30 July 2013)

The court held that the incident was primarily caused by Mr Gilman's negligence in failing to properly immobilise his vehicle, but that UPS was also negligent in failing to identify and address the foreseeable risk of vehicle incursion from its depot onto the railway line, given the slope, inadequate fence, and lack of control measures. The risk was not so remote as to be unforeseeable, and reasonable steps (such as improved barriers or kerbs) could have been taken at modest cost. Network Rail was not liable as it had no responsibility for the depot fence and had complied with its statutory obligations. Apportionment of liability was made between Mr Gilman and UPS, with no liability...

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2341 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Gilman; First Defendant: UPS Limited; Second Defendant: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Claim and Counterclaim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim against UPS succeeds in part; claim against Network Rail dismissed; Network Rail's counterclaim against claimant succeeds in part; apportionment of liability between claimant and UPS; orders as to contribution and costs made accordingly.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Risk Assessment, Duty of Care, Statutory Obligations, Railway Safety, Workplace Safety
Tort Law Health and Safety Law Civil Procedure Negligence Contribution Between Tortfeasors Risk Assessment Duty of Care Statutory Obligations +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Gilman

Claimant

UPS Limited

First Defendant

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Claim and Counterclaim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UPS and/or Network Rail were negligent and contributed to the incident
  2. 2 Whether the risk of vehicle incursion from the depot was reasonably foreseeable
  3. 3 Whether UPS's risk assessment and control measures were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the incident was primarily caused by Mr Gilman's negligence in failing to properly immobilise his vehicle, but that UPS was also negligent in failing to identify and address the foreseeable risk of vehicle incursion from its depot onto the railway line, given the slope, inadequate fence, and lack of control measures. The risk was not so remote as to be unforeseeable, and reasonable steps (such as improved barriers or kerbs) could have been taken at modest cost. Network Rail was not liable as it had no responsibility for the depot fence and had complied with its statutory obligations. Apportionment of liability was made between Mr Gilman and UPS, with no liability...

Court Disposition

Claim against UPS succeeds in part; claim against Network Rail dismissed; Network Rail's counterclaim against claimant succeeds in part; apportionment of liability between claimant and UPS; orders as to contribution and costs made accordingly.

Orders

  • UPS to contribute to the claimant's insurers for a proportion of the settlement outlay under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, quantum to be determined as per judgment.
  • Claim against Network Rail dismissed with costs.