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

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

The Third Defendant did not owe a duty of care to the Claimant for vehicle movements across the Common outside the fairground site, as responsibility for public safety and risk management in those areas remained with the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant failed to implement adequate risk assessments and safety measures to segregate vehicles and pedestrians during event setup, breaching its duty of care. The Claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 12.5% for failing to take reasonable care for her own safety. The contractual indemnity did not entitle the Second Defendant to a full indemnity from the Third Defendant, as the accident was not directly caused by the Third...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 46 (QB)
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: Second Defendant liable to Claimant, Third Defendant not liable. Claimant's damages reduced by 12.5% for contributory negligence. No full indemnity for Second Defendant from Third Defendant.
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 4 Authorities cited 4 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 vehicle movements on the Common
  2. 2 Whether the Third Defendant was negligent in failing to ensure safe movement of fairground vehicles
  3. 3 Whether the Second Defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Third Defendant did not owe a duty of care to the Claimant for vehicle movements across the Common outside the fairground site, as responsibility for public safety and risk management in those areas remained with the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant failed to implement adequate risk assessments and safety measures to segregate vehicles and pedestrians during event setup, breaching its duty of care. The Claimant was contributorily negligent to the extent of 12.5% for failing to take reasonable care for her own safety. The contractual indemnity did not entitle the Second Defendant to a full indemnity from the Third Defendant, as the accident was not directly caused by the Third...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: Second Defendant liable to Claimant, Third Defendant not liable. Claimant's damages reduced by 12.5% for contributory negligence. No full indemnity for Second Defendant from Third Defendant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant against the Second Defendant, subject to 12.5% reduction for contributory negligence.
  • Claim against the Third Defendant dismissed.