McGeer v McIntosh [2017] EWCA Civ 79 (23 February 2017)

McGeer v McIntosh [2017] EWCA Civ 79 (23 February 2017)

The defendant was negligent for failing to properly check his nearside mirrors before moving off and immediately before turning left, which would have revealed the claimant's presence. The claimant was contributorily negligent for undertaking the HGV and failing to heed Highway Code advice, but the major responsibility lay with the defendant due to the causative potency of the HGV.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 79
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Collette McGeer (A Protected Party by her Litigation Friend, Amy Elizabeth Clague); Defendant/appellant: Robert McIntosh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident

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

Parties

Collette McGeer (A Protected Party by her Litigation Friend, Amy Elizabeth Clague)

Claimant/respondent

Robert McIntosh

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant negligent in failing to check his nearside mirrors before and during the left turn?
  2. 2 Was the claimant contributorily negligent in undertaking the HGV and failing to heed Highway Code advice?
  3. 3 Was the apportionment of liability between the parties correct?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was negligent for failing to properly check his nearside mirrors before moving off and immediately before turning left, which would have revealed the claimant's presence. The claimant was contributorily negligent for undertaking the HGV and failing to heed Highway Code advice, but the major responsibility lay with the defendant due to the causative potency of the HGV.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant awarded 70% of damages to be assessed
  • Defendant found negligent