Colizzi v Coulson & Anor [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB) (26 July 2024)

Colizzi v Coulson & Anor [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB) (26 July 2024)

The court found that the First Defendant was not negligent in his driving. The evidence did not establish that the Claimant stopped in a position where she would have been visible to the Defendant for long enough to allow him to take effective avoiding action. The Claimant moved into the path of the Defendant's vehicle in circumstances where the Defendant could not reasonably have been expected to avoid the collision. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Jacqueline Colizzi; Litigation Friend for Claimant: Susan Chinn; First Defendant: Adam Coulson; Second Defendant: UK Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Preliminary Trial on Liability and Causation
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Duty of Care, Causation
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Duty 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Colizzi

Claimant

Susan Chinn

Litigation Friend for Claimant

Adam Coulson

First Defendant

UK Insurance Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Preliminary Trial on Liability and Causation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant was negligent in the control of his vehicle and whether, had he driven non-negligently, the collision could have been avoided or reduced in severity such that the Claimant's catastrophic brain injury would have been avoided or significantly reduced.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent and to what extent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Defendant was not negligent in his driving. The evidence did not establish that the Claimant stopped in a position where she would have been visible to the Defendant for long enough to allow him to take effective avoiding action. The Claimant moved into the path of the Defendant's vehicle in circumstances where the Defendant could not reasonably have been expected to avoid the collision. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against both Defendants
  • No finding of liability against the First Defendant