Vincent v Walker & Anor [2021] EWHC 536 (QB) (08 March 2021)

Vincent v Walker & Anor [2021] EWHC 536 (QB) (08 March 2021)

The defendant was not driving at an excessive speed nor failing to scan the road adequately. The claimant, by stepping into the carriageway without looking or using the traffic lights, bore primary responsibility for the accident. The claim is dismissed as the claimant was two-thirds responsible for his injuries.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 536 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Gary Vincent; Defendant: Gary Walker; Defendant: Vidionics Security Systems Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Duty of Care, Standard of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Duty of Care Standard of Care

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Vincent

Claimant

Gary Walker

Defendant

Vidionics Security Systems Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was driving at an excessive speed
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to pay sufficient attention to the road and surrounding area
  3. 3 Extent of claimant's contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was not driving at an excessive speed nor failing to scan the road adequately. The claimant, by stepping into the carriageway without looking or using the traffic lights, bore primary responsibility for the accident. The claim is dismissed as the claimant was two-thirds responsible for his injuries.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed