Rowbottom v The Estate of Peter Howard, Deceased & Anor [2023] EWHC 931 (KB) (25 April 2023)

Rowbottom v The Estate of Peter Howard, Deceased & Anor [2023] EWHC 931 (KB) (25 April 2023)

The collision was caused solely by Mr Teasdale's negligence in drifting onto the incorrect side of the road due to a lapse in concentration. Mr Howard was not negligent, and the claimant was blameless. There was no breach of duty or causation established against Mr Howard. Judgment is for the claimant against the second defendant, with damages to be assessed. The claim against the first defendant is dismissed.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 931 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Claire Louise Rowbottom; First Defendant: The Estate of Peter Howard, deceased; Second Defendant: David Teasdale
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial of Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against the second defendant; claim against the first defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Liability Apportionment
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Liability Apportionment

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Louise Rowbottom

Claimant

The Estate of Peter Howard, deceased

First Defendant

David Teasdale

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial of Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the collision was caused by the fault of Mr Howard or Mr Teasdale or both
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was blameless
  3. 3 Whether excessive speed or road positioning by Mr Howard contributed to the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The collision was caused solely by Mr Teasdale's negligence in drifting onto the incorrect side of the road due to a lapse in concentration. Mr Howard was not negligent, and the claimant was blameless. There was no breach of duty or causation established against Mr Howard. Judgment is for the claimant against the second defendant, with damages to be assessed. The claim against the first defendant is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against the second defendant; claim against the first defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against the second defendant for damages to be assessed.
  • Claim against the first defendant dismissed.