Green v Sunset & Vine Productions Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1441 (16 December 2010)

Green v Sunset & Vine Productions Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1441 (16 December 2010)

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the principal cause of the accident was the appellant's own error of judgment in driving, with the kerb camera playing only a minor, non-causative role. The placement and manner of installation of the camera were not negligent in law, as the risk of significant destabilisation was not reasonably foreseeable and the practice conformed to a responsible body of opinion. Even if there was negligence in failing to obtain formal approval or in the manner of installation, such negligence was not causative of the accident. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1441
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
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Causation, Standard of Care, Foreseeability, Duty of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Causation Standard of Care Foreseeability 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 2 Authorities cited 3 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

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sunset & Vine Productions Limited and BARC were negligent in the placement and securing of a kerb camera at a motor racing event, causing or contributing to the appellant's accident and injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's own driving constituted contributory negligence and to what extent.
  3. 3 Whether the lack of official approval for the camera's placement or manner of installation was causative of the accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the principal cause of the accident was the appellant's own error of judgment in driving, with the kerb camera playing only a minor, non-causative role. The placement and manner of installation of the camera were not negligent in law, as the risk of significant destabilisation was not reasonably foreseeable and the practice conformed to a responsible body of opinion. Even if there was negligence in failing to obtain formal approval or in the manner of installation, such negligence was not causative of the accident. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No liability found against Sunset & Vine Productions Limited or BARC for the appellant's injuries.
  • No order for damages or compensation to the appellant.