Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801 (22 May 2002)

Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801 (22 May 2002)

The trial judge's apportionment of one-third liability to the appellant and two-thirds to the respondent was within the range of reasonable conclusions, as the focus should be on the conduct (stepping into the carriageway and failing to keep a proper lookout) rather than the appellant's intoxication. The Court of Appeal found no clear error justifying interference.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 801
Parties
Claimant/appellant: John Lunt; Defendant/respondent: Bekhia Khelifa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Pedestrian and Driver Responsibility
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Pedestrian and Driver Responsibility

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lunt

Claimant/appellant

Bekhia Khelifa

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in apportioning liability for a road traffic accident between a pedestrian and a driver, particularly in light of the pedestrian's intoxication.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's apportionment of one-third liability to the appellant and two-thirds to the respondent was within the range of reasonable conclusions, as the focus should be on the conduct (stepping into the carriageway and failing to keep a proper lookout) rather than the appellant's intoxication. The Court of Appeal found no clear error justifying interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs save detailed assessment of the Claimant's Community Legal Services Funding