Schofield v Gultepe

Schofield v Gultepe

The claimant was struck by the tender operated by the first defendant, who failed to keep a proper lookout and navigated at an excessive speed in an area known to have swimmers, breaching local regulations and the duty of care. The second defendant is vicariously liable.

Parties
Claimant: Holly Ann Schofield; First Defendant: Cemal Gultepe; Second Defendant: Enigma Blue Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment
Outcome
Liability established against both defendants
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Safe Speed, Proper Lookout, Collision Regulations
Tort Admiralty Personal Injury Negligence Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Safe Speed Proper Lookout +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holly Ann Schofield

Claimant

Cemal Gultepe

First Defendant

Enigma Blue Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's injuries were caused by the tender under the control of the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant was at fault or negligent
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant is vicariously liable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was struck by the tender operated by the first defendant, who failed to keep a proper lookout and navigated at an excessive speed in an area known to have swimmers, breaching local regulations and the duty of care. The second defendant is vicariously liable.

Court Disposition

Liability established against both defendants

Orders

  • First defendant found liable for claimant's injuries
  • Second defendant found vicariously liable for claimant's injuries