Jagger v Holland & Ors [2020] EWHC 46 (QB) (15 January 2020)

Jagger v Holland & Ors [2020] EWHC 46 (QB) (15 January 2020)

The accident was caused by a failure to implement an adequate system for segregating vehicles and pedestrians during the setup of the fairground. Both the Second and Third Defendants owed a duty of care to the Claimant. The Second Defendant, as the event organiser retaining control of the Common, failed to ensure a safe system and adequate risk assessment. The Third Defendant, responsible for the fairground and movement of fairground vehicles, failed to implement or require proper safety measures. The Claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 12.5%. Liability was apportioned accordingly between the Defendants found liable.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 46
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
Personal Injury Negligence / Trial on Liability
Outcome
Liability apportioned; judgment for Claimant with 12.5% reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Contractual Indemnity, Risk Assessment, Event Management
Tort Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Occupiers' Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Vicarious Liability Contractual Indemnity +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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

Personal Injury Negligence / Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant for the accident on the Common
  2. 2 Whether the Second and/or Third Defendant breached their duty of care in relation to vehicle and pedestrian segregation
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused by a failure to implement an adequate system for segregating vehicles and pedestrians during the setup of the fairground. Both the Second and Third Defendants owed a duty of care to the Claimant. The Second Defendant, as the event organiser retaining control of the Common, failed to ensure a safe system and adequate risk assessment. The Third Defendant, responsible for the fairground and movement of fairground vehicles, failed to implement or require proper safety measures. The Claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 12.5%. Liability was apportioned accordingly between the Defendants found liable.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned; judgment for Claimant with 12.5% reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • First and Second Defendants liable to Claimant, subject to 12.5% reduction for contributory negligence.
  • Third Defendant found liable in negligence to Claimant.