Steadman v London United Busways Ltd & Anor

Steadman v London United Busways Ltd & Anor

The accident was caused by the first defendant's driver, who drove too close to the second defendant's vehicle and failed to keep a proper lookout. The second defendant was not negligent; his reduction in speed was a normal and considerate manoeuvre in city traffic. There was no evidence that the second defendant braked suddenly or without warning.

Parties
Claimant: Valerie Steadman; First Defendant: London United Busways Limited; Second Defendant: Matthew Sala
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Claim against the second defendant dismissed; no negligence found.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Liability Apportionment
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Road Traffic Accident Liability Apportionment

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valerie Steadman

Claimant

London United Busways Limited

First Defendant

Matthew Sala

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant was negligent and caused the accident resulting in injury to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's driver was negligent and caused the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused by the first defendant's driver, who drove too close to the second defendant's vehicle and failed to keep a proper lookout. The second defendant was not negligent; his reduction in speed was a normal and considerate manoeuvre in city traffic. There was no evidence that the second defendant braked suddenly or without warning.

Court Disposition

Claim against the second defendant dismissed; no negligence found.

Orders

  • No liability attaches to the second defendant.
  • The first defendant is to meet the claimant’s claim in full if the second defendant is not negligent.