Grace v Tanner

Grace v Tanner

Both parties were negligent: the appellant failed to keep a proper lookout and made unsafe assumptions, while the respondent failed to consider the presence of vehicles in the outside lane when missing her exit. Responsibility for the accident should be apportioned equally at 50/50.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mandie Grace; Respondent: Angela Tanner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; liability apportioned 50/50
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Highway Code Interpretation
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Highway Code Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandie Grace

Appellant

Angela Tanner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether both parties were negligent in causing the traffic accident
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the defendant wholly free of blame
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of liability in a roundabout collision

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties were negligent: the appellant failed to keep a proper lookout and made unsafe assumptions, while the respondent failed to consider the presence of vehicles in the outside lane when missing her exit. Responsibility for the accident should be apportioned equally at 50/50.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; liability apportioned 50/50

Orders

  • Order for apportionment between the parties of 50 per cent each
  • Matter to return to the county court