Vincent v Walker & Anor

Vincent v Walker & Anor

The defendant was not driving at an excessive speed nor did he fail to scan the road adequately. The claimant was primarily responsible for the accident by stepping into the carriageway without looking and not using the pedestrian crossing properly. The claim is dismissed as the claimant bears two-thirds responsibility for the accident.

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 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Duty of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Duty 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Vincent

Claimant

Gary Walker

Defendant

Vidionics Security Systems Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Judgment After Trial

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 did he fail to scan the road adequately. The claimant was primarily responsible for the accident by stepping into the carriageway without looking and not using the pedestrian crossing properly. The claim is dismissed as the claimant bears two-thirds responsibility for the accident.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed