Burton v Evitt
The appellant failed to exercise due care by not taking additional steps to check for overtaking motorcyclists in a blind spot created by the vehicle behind, justifying a finding of negligence. However, the respondent's gross negligence in speed and overtaking warranted a revised apportionment of liability to 80/20.
- Parties
- Respondent/claimant: Burton; Appellant/defendant: Evitt
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Burton
Respondent/claimant
Evitt
Appellant/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant negligent
- 2 Whether the apportionment of liability was correct
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to exercise due care by not taking additional steps to check for overtaking motorcyclists in a blind spot created by the vehicle behind, justifying a finding of negligence. However, the respondent's gross negligence in speed and overtaking warranted a revised apportionment of liability to 80/20.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Apportionment of liability set aside
- Liability apportioned 80/20 in favour of the appellant
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