Parry v Johnson & Anor (Rev2) [2022] EWHC 889 (QB) (11 April 2022)

Parry v Johnson & Anor (Rev2) [2022] EWHC 889 (QB) (11 April 2022)

The 1st Defendant was negligent by driving too fast for the conditions, failing to use main beam headlights, and failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians on the verge, especially when towing an overhanging, unlit seeding machine. The Claimant and his wife were sufficiently visible and took reasonable precautions. There was no contributory negligence by the Claimant.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 889
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Parry; 1st Defendant: Stephen Johnson; 2nd Defendant: NFU Mutual
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Pedestrian Safety, Road Traffic Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Pedestrian Safety Road Traffic Liability

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Parry

Claimant

Stephen Johnson

1st Defendant

NFU Mutual

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant was negligent in causing injury to the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant contributed to the accident by his own negligence
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of care for drivers towing overhanging equipment

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant was negligent by driving too fast for the conditions, failing to use main beam headlights, and failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians on the verge, especially when towing an overhanging, unlit seeding machine. The Claimant and his wife were sufficiently visible and took reasonable precautions. There was no contributory negligence by the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Assertion of contributory negligence dismissed
  • Consequential orders to be dealt with in attached Order