Jagger v Holland & Ors

Jagger v Holland & Ors

The Second Defendant, as organiser of the event and in control of the Common, owed and breached a duty of care to the Claimant by failing to ensure segregation of vehicles and pedestrians during set-up, and is liable. The Third Defendant did not owe a duty of care to the Claimant for vehicle movements outside the fairground site, as responsibility for pedestrian safety on the Common rested with the Second Defendant. The First Defendant was primarily liable for negligent driving. Apportionment: First Defendant 65%, Second Defendant 35%, after 12.5% deduction for Claimant's contributory negligence.

Parties
Claimant: Joanne Jagger; First Defendant: Austin Holland; Second Defendant: Cambridge Live Limited; Third Defendant: Stanley Thurston (T/A S. C. Thurston & Son)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the First and Second Defendants for 87.5% of recoverable damages; Third Defendant not liable.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Health and Safety at Work, Event Organisation, Banksman Duties
Tort Personal Injury Health and Safety Event Management Negligence Occupiers' Liability Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanne Jagger

Claimant

Austin Holland

First Defendant

Cambridge Live Limited

Second Defendant

Stanley Thurston (T/A S. C. Thurston & Son)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant for injuries sustained outside the fairground site
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant was liable for failing to ensure pedestrian safety during event set-up
  3. 3 Apportionment of liability between Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant, as organiser of the event and in control of the Common, owed and breached a duty of care to the Claimant by failing to ensure segregation of vehicles and pedestrians during set-up, and is liable. The Third Defendant did not owe a duty of care to the Claimant for vehicle movements outside the fairground site, as responsibility for pedestrian safety on the Common rested with the Second Defendant. The First Defendant was primarily liable for negligent driving. Apportionment: First Defendant 65%, Second Defendant 35%, after 12.5% deduction for Claimant's contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the First and Second Defendants for 87.5% of recoverable damages; Third Defendant not liable.

Orders

  • First and Second Defendants to pay 87.5% of Claimant's damages, apportioned 65% to First Defendant and 35% to Second Defendant.
  • Liability apportioned after deduction of 12.5% for Claimant's contributory negligence.