Howe v Houlton & Ors [2009] EWHC 3344 (QB) (18 December 2009)

Howe v Houlton & Ors [2009] EWHC 3344 (QB) (18 December 2009)

The defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and driving too close to the parked Peugeot, causing the collision and severe injury to the claimant. There was no credible evidence of oncoming traffic forcing the defendant to move left. The claimant was outside the vehicle and visible; the defendant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3344 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Howe; First Defendant: Wayne Houlton; Second Defendant: Marshall Barry Ltd; Third Defendant: Norwich Union Insurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Liability Trial (split Trial, Liability Only)
Outcome
Liability found against all defendants; claimant succeeds.
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Vicarious Liability, Contributory Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Road Traffic Accident Vicarious Liability Contributory Negligence

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Andrew Howe

Claimant

Wayne Houlton

First Defendant

Marshall Barry Ltd

Second Defendant

Norwich Union Insurance Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Liability Trial (split Trial, Liability Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant negligent in driving the lorry and causing injury to the claimant?
  2. 2 Was the claimant contributorily negligent?
  3. 3 Are the second and third defendants vicariously liable for the first defendant's actions?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and driving too close to the parked Peugeot, causing the collision and severe injury to the claimant. There was no credible evidence of oncoming traffic forcing the defendant to move left. The claimant was outside the vehicle and visible; the defendant should have seen and avoided him. The second defendant is vicariously liable, and the third defendant must indemnify. The claimant was not contributorily negligent.

Court Disposition

Liability found against all defendants; claimant succeeds.

Orders

  • Defendants liable for claimant's injuries and losses.
  • Second defendant vicariously liable for first defendant's negligence.