Smith v Co-Operative Group Ltd & Anor

Smith v Co-Operative Group Ltd & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Hammond was not negligent as the standard of care required did not obligate him to sound his horn while simultaneously braking and swerving to avoid the accident. The judge erred in rejecting unchallenged expert evidence on reaction times and in substituting his own experience. There was no causative link between the alleged negligence and the accident. The counterclaim succeeded as a 13-year-old should have reasonably foreseen injury to other road users, including the driver.

Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: Joshua Smith (through his father and litigation friend Peter Smith); Defendant/appellant: Co-operative Group Limited; Second Respondent: Mark Hammond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability and Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment against Mr. Hammond set aside; judgment entered for Mr. Hammond on the counterclaim; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Employer's Liability, Psychiatric Harm, Duty of Care
Tort Law Employment Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Employer's Liability Psychiatric Harm Duty of Care

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua Smith (through his father and litigation friend Peter Smith)

Claimant/first Respondent

Co-operative Group Limited

Defendant/appellant

Mark Hammond

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver (Mr. Hammond) was negligent in failing to sound his horn or otherwise avoid the accident
  2. 2 Whether causation was established between the alleged negligence and the accident
  3. 3 Whether the claimant (Joshua Smith) was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Hammond was not negligent as the standard of care required did not obligate him to sound his horn while simultaneously braking and swerving to avoid the accident. The judge erred in rejecting unchallenged expert evidence on reaction times and in substituting his own experience. There was no causative link between the alleged negligence and the accident. The counterclaim succeeded as a 13-year-old should have reasonably foreseen injury to other road users, including the driver.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment against Mr. Hammond set aside; judgment entered for Mr. Hammond on the counterclaim; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Judgment against Mr. Hammond set aside
  • Judgment for Mr. Hammond on the counterclaim for damages to be assessed