Berresford v Shah & Anor [2024] EWHC 3500 (KB) (03 October 2024)

Berresford v Shah & Anor [2024] EWHC 3500 (KB) (03 October 2024)

The defendant breached his duty of care by driving off with the rear door open while the claimant was exiting, causing foreseeable injury. The defence of illegality fails as the claimant did not intend to avoid payment, and even if she had, denial of damages would be disproportionate. The claimant contributed to her injury by attempting to exit the moving vehicle, warranting a 10% reduction in damages.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3500 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Darcie Patricia Frances Berresford; First Defendant: Syed Masroor Haider Shah; Second Defendant: Calpe Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Liability Only Trial
Outcome
Claim for liability succeeds, subject to 10% reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa), Duty of Care, Taxi Passenger Injury
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa) Duty of Care Taxi Passenger Injury

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

Parties

Darcie Patricia Frances Berresford

Claimant

Syed Masroor Haider Shah

First Defendant

Calpe Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Liability Only Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant taxi driver was negligent and breached his duty of care to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was engaged in illegal activity (fare dodging) barring recovery (ex turpi causa)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant contributed to her own injury (contributory negligence)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached his duty of care by driving off with the rear door open while the claimant was exiting, causing foreseeable injury. The defence of illegality fails as the claimant did not intend to avoid payment, and even if she had, denial of damages would be disproportionate. The claimant contributed to her injury by attempting to exit the moving vehicle, warranting a 10% reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Claim for liability succeeds, subject to 10% reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant on liability.
  • Damages to be assessed or agreed, reduced by 10% for contributory negligence.