Great North Eastern Railway Ltd v Hart & Ors

Great North Eastern Railway Ltd v Hart & Ors

Negligence was not established against the Department because the length of the approach safety fence to Little Heck Bridge complied with applicable standards, was determined by professional judgment, and did not constitute a dangerously short or unsafe installation. There was no breach of duty in 1974 or during subsequent repairs, and thus no basis for contribution. The ex turpi causa principle does not bar Hart's claim, but as negligence was not found, the claim fails.

Parties
Claimant: Great North Eastern Railway Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Gary Neil Hart; First Part 20 Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Second Part 20 Defendant: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial on Claim for Contribution
Outcome
Claim for contribution dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Contribution, Highway Authority Liability, Apportionment, Ex Turpi Causa
Tort Law Public Authority Liability Highway Law Negligence Duty of Care Contribution Highway Authority Liability Apportionment +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great North Eastern Railway Limited

Claimant

Gary Neil Hart

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

First Part 20 Defendant

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial on Claim for Contribution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department (Secretary of State for Transport) was negligent in failing to provide a longer approach safety fence to Little Heck Bridge in 1974 or during subsequent repairs, thereby contributing to the rail disaster caused by Hart's vehicle leaving the motorway and entering the railway line.
  2. 2 Whether a duty of care is owed by a highway authority to persons or property off the highway in respect of dangers created by the authority.
  3. 3 Whether the ex turpi causa principle precludes Hart's claim for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Ratio Decidendi

Negligence was not established against the Department because the length of the approach safety fence to Little Heck Bridge complied with applicable standards, was determined by professional judgment, and did not constitute a dangerously short or unsafe installation. There was no breach of duty in 1974 or during subsequent repairs, and thus no basis for contribution. The ex turpi causa principle does not bar Hart's claim, but as negligence was not found, the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim for contribution dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 is dismissed.