Atkinson v Kennedy & Anor [2024] EWHC 2299 (KB) (24 July 2024)

Atkinson v Kennedy & Anor [2024] EWHC 2299 (KB) (24 July 2024)

The Defendant did not breach his duty of care as a reasonably competent and careful professional driver. The accident was not reasonably foreseeable, and no measures (stopping or further reduction of speed) were required to prevent it. The Claimant ran into the side of the vehicle, and the accident was unavoidable at the speed driven. There was no obligation to stop or to ensure the audible warning was activated. No contributory negligence attaches to the Claimant.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2299 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Miss Gracie Lea Atkinson (a child proceeding by her mother and litigation friend, Mrs Josie Blackburn); First Defendant: Mr Thomas Kennedy; Second Defendant: Grab and Deliver Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Contributory Negligence, Standard of Care, Road Traffic Accident, Duty of Care, Child Pedestrian, Highway Code
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Vicarious Liability Contributory Negligence Standard of Care Road Traffic Accident Duty of Care +2 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Gracie Lea Atkinson (a child proceeding by her mother and litigation friend, Mrs Josie Blackburn)

Claimant

Mr Thomas Kennedy

First Defendant

Grab and Deliver Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's driving fell below the standard of a reasonably competent and careful professional driver and caused the accident
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached his duty of care to the Claimant as a child pedestrian
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant should have stopped or reduced speed further at the junction

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant did not breach his duty of care as a reasonably competent and careful professional driver. The accident was not reasonably foreseeable, and no measures (stopping or further reduction of speed) were required to prevent it. The Claimant ran into the side of the vehicle, and the accident was unavoidable at the speed driven. There was no obligation to stop or to ensure the audible warning was activated. No contributory negligence attaches to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant