Jessop v Nixon [2010] EWHC 3211 (QB) (14 December 2010)

Jessop v Nixon [2010] EWHC 3211 (QB) (14 December 2010)

Both parties were negligent: the claimant was driving recklessly and at excessive speed, while the defendant, although generally cautious, failed to exercise the heightened care required when emerging from a junction with restricted visibility. The claimant's negligence was the predominant cause, but the defendant's failure to take all reasonable precautions contributed. Liability apportioned 80% to the claimant and 20% to the defendant.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3211 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Jessop (by his mother and Litigation Friend, Veronica Rundle); Defendant: Mark Stuart Nixon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Trial on Primary Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on liability, with contributory negligence assessed at 80%.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Jessop (by his mother and Litigation Friend, Veronica Rundle)

Claimant

Mark Stuart Nixon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Trial on Primary Liability and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in emerging from a side road into the path of the claimant's motorcycle
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent by riding at excessive speed and in a reckless manner
  3. 3 Apportionment of liability between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties were negligent: the claimant was driving recklessly and at excessive speed, while the defendant, although generally cautious, failed to exercise the heightened care required when emerging from a junction with restricted visibility. The claimant's negligence was the predominant cause, but the defendant's failure to take all reasonable precautions contributed. Liability apportioned 80% to the claimant and 20% to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on liability, with contributory negligence assessed at 80%.

Orders

  • Claimant to recover damages reduced by 80% for contributory negligence.