Ahanonu v South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd
The bus driver was not negligent because the circumstances required him to focus on the bus in front, and the claimant's actions were extraordinarily dangerous and unforeseeable. Imposing a duty to constantly check the nearside mirror would itself have created a hazard. The trial judge erred in finding liability.
- Parties
- Respondent/claimant: Ahanonu; Appellants/defendants: South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Liability and Contributory Negligence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; defendants not liable.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Standard of Care
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ahanonu
Respondent/claimant
South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd
Appellants/defendants
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Liability and Contributory Negligence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bus driver was negligent in colliding with the claimant
- 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent and to what extent
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in finding liability against the defendants
Ratio Decidendi
The bus driver was not negligent because the circumstances required him to focus on the bus in front, and the claimant's actions were extraordinarily dangerous and unforeseeable. Imposing a duty to constantly check the nearside mirror would itself have created a hazard. The trial judge erred in finding liability.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; defendants not liable.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Claim against defendants dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment