Chan v Peters & Anor [2021] EWHC 2004 (QB) (16 July 2021)

Chan v Peters & Anor [2021] EWHC 2004 (QB) (16 July 2021)

The Defendant was not negligent as she could not have seen the Claimant until he emerged from behind the parked vehicle, and her response time was reasonable. The Claimant was not visible or conspicuous prior to entering the road, and the Defendant's driving met the standard of a reasonably competent driver. The accident was not avoidable by the Defendant under the circumstances. Claim dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2004 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Toby Oliver Chan; First Defendant: Ms Paula Peters; Second Defendant: Advantage Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Duty of Care, Standard of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident Duty of Care Standard of Care

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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Toby Oliver Chan

Claimant

Ms Paula Peters

First Defendant

Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident was caused by the Defendant's negligence
  2. 2 Whether damages should be reduced for contributory negligence
  3. 3 Extent of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was not negligent as she could not have seen the Claimant until he emerged from behind the parked vehicle, and her response time was reasonable. The Claimant was not visible or conspicuous prior to entering the road, and the Defendant's driving met the standard of a reasonably competent driver. The accident was not avoidable by the Defendant under the circumstances. Claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed