Lowdon v Jumpzone Leisure UK Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 586 (16 June 2015)

Lowdon v Jumpzone Leisure UK Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 586 (16 June 2015)

The risk of injury to the neck was a foreseeable consequence of launching a customer without warning when unprepared, and the trial judge was entitled to award additional damages for loss of use of a car given the particular circumstances and inconvenience suffered by the claimant.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 586
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Jason Lowdon; Respondent / Defendant: Jumpzone Leisure UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Brighton County Court Judgment Dated 17 July 2014
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Foreseeability of Injury, Damages Assessment, Loss of Amenity
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Foreseeability of Injury Damages Assessment Loss of Amenity

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

Parties

Jason Lowdon

Appellant / Claimant

Jumpzone Leisure UK Limited

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Brighton County Court Judgment Dated 17 July 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that injury would be caused by launching a customer on a fairground ride without warning
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of damages awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of use of a car was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of injury to the neck was a foreseeable consequence of launching a customer without warning when unprepared, and the trial judge was entitled to award additional damages for loss of use of a car given the particular circumstances and inconvenience suffered by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against liability is dismissed.
  • The appeal against quantum is dismissed.