Green v Sunset & Vine Productions Ltd & Anor

Green v Sunset & Vine Productions Ltd & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the principal cause of the accident was the appellant's own driving error in taking an aggressive line at excessive speed, and that the presence and installation of the kerb camera played, at most, a minor and non-causative role. The judge's findings that the placement and installation of the camera were not negligent, and that any negligence in failing to secure approval or in the manner of installation played no causal part in the accident, were upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Malcolm William Green; First Respondent: Sunset & Vine Productions Limited; Second Respondent: The British Automobile Racing Club Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Causation, Contributory Negligence, Foreseeability, Standard of Care
Tort Law Negligence Causation Contributory Negligence Foreseeability 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm William Green

Appellant

Sunset & Vine Productions Limited

First Respondent

The British Automobile Racing Club Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sunset & Vine Productions Limited and BARC were negligent in the placement and installation of a kerb camera at a motor racing event, causing or contributing to the claimant's accident and injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the claimant's expert evidence as to causation and in finding the claimant's own driving as the principal cause of the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the presence and installation of the kerb camera was a legally causative factor in the accident under principles of foreseeability and causation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the principal cause of the accident was the appellant's own driving error in taking an aggressive line at excessive speed, and that the presence and installation of the kerb camera played, at most, a minor and non-causative role. The judge's findings that the placement and installation of the camera were not negligent, and that any negligence in failing to secure approval or in the manner of installation played no causal part in the accident, were upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed