Whiting v First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd

Whiting v First/Keolis Transpennine Ltd

The trial judge was entitled to accept the guard's evidence that the Appellant was at the wall and showed no intention to move before the train was dispatched, and that the guard complied with all procedural requirements. The judge's findings were not perverse or contrary to the expert evidence, and there was no breach of duty or systemic failure by the Respondent. Accordingly, the claim was properly dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Ian Whiting; Respondent: First/Keolis Transpennine Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Railway Accidents
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Railway Accidents

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Whiting

Appellant

First/Keolis Transpennine Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent (train operator) was negligent in the dispatch of the train resulting in the Appellant's injuries
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting agreed expert evidence regarding the mechanism and location of the accident
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent had a systemic failure in training and monitoring staff

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to accept the guard's evidence that the Appellant was at the wall and showed no intention to move before the train was dispatched, and that the guard complied with all procedural requirements. The judge's findings were not perverse or contrary to the expert evidence, and there was no breach of duty or systemic failure by the Respondent. Accordingly, the claim was properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment for the Respondent; no liability found against the Respondent