Miah v Jones & Anor [2024] EWHC 92 (KB) (30 January 2024)

Miah v Jones & Anor [2024] EWHC 92 (KB) (30 January 2024)

The First Defendant was not negligent. Driving at just under the national speed limit at night on a rural, straight road with no street lighting was not negligent per se. The First Defendant could not reasonably have identified the stationary bus as a hazard from a significant distance at night, nor anticipated a pedestrian crossing at a non-bus stop. By the time the Claimant became visible, it was too late to avoid the collision. The Claimant's own negligence in crossing without looking was the operative cause of the accident.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 92 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mohammed Mashuk Miah; First Defendant: Doctor Hayley Jones; Second Defendant: Aviva Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Standard of Care, Causation
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Standard of Care Causation

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Mashuk Miah

Claimant

Doctor Hayley Jones

First Defendant

Aviva Insurance Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant was negligent in her driving and breached the standard of care owed to the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether any proven negligence by the First Defendant caused the accident
  3. 3 The extent of contributory negligence by the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant was not negligent. Driving at just under the national speed limit at night on a rural, straight road with no street lighting was not negligent per se. The First Defendant could not reasonably have identified the stationary bus as a hazard from a significant distance at night, nor anticipated a pedestrian crossing at a non-bus stop. By the time the Claimant became visible, it was too late to avoid the collision. The Claimant's own negligence in crossing without looking was the operative cause of the accident.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed