Pigford v Sunderland

Pigford v Sunderland

The majority held that, despite inconsistencies and the weight of contemporaneous statements suggesting ice, the trial judge was entitled to prefer the oral evidence and meteorological reports indicating wet conditions, and his finding was not perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Eileen Pigford; Defendant/appellant: City of Sunderland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Burden of Proof, Findings of Fact, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Burden of Proof Findings of Fact Contributory Negligence

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eileen Pigford

Claimant/respondent

City of Sunderland

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant slipped due to ice or wet conditions on the walkway
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's finding of fact was perverse or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that, despite inconsistencies and the weight of contemporaneous statements suggesting ice, the trial judge was entitled to prefer the oral evidence and meteorological reports indicating wet conditions, and his finding was not perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed