Schofield v Gultepe [2019] EWHC 293 (Admlty) (15 February 2019)

Schofield v Gultepe [2019] EWHC 293 (Admlty) (15 February 2019)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was struck by the defendants' tender, operated by the first defendant, and that the injuries were caused by the tender travelling at a speed sufficient to inflict such injuries. The first defendant failed to keep a proper lookout and did not exercise due care, constituting negligence. The second defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant's actions.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 293 (Admlty)
Parties
Claimant: Holly Schofield; First Defendant: Cemal Gultepe; Second Defendant: Enigma Blue's Owner (Company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury, Duty of Care, Causation, Standard of Proof
Tort Law Maritime Law Negligence Vicarious Liability Personal Injury Duty of Care Causation Standard of Proof

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holly Schofield

Claimant

Cemal Gultepe

First Defendant

Enigma Blue's Owner (Company)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's injuries were caused by the defendants' tender
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was at fault or negligent
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was struck by the defendants' tender, operated by the first defendant, and that the injuries were caused by the tender travelling at a speed sufficient to inflict such injuries. The first defendant failed to keep a proper lookout and did not exercise due care, constituting negligence. The second defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant's actions.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against both defendants
  • Assessment of damages to be determined