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 at a grossly excessive and reckless speed, which was the primary cause of the accident, but the defendant also failed to exercise the degree of care required when emerging from a minor road 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
Parties
Claimant: Robert Jessop; Litigation Friend for Claimant: Veronica Rundle; Defendant: Mark Stuart Nixon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial of Primary Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Liability apportioned 80% to claimant, 20% to defendant; judgment for claimant subject to reduction for contributory negligence.
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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Jessop

Claimant

Veronica Rundle

Litigation Friend for Claimant

Mark Stuart Nixon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial of Primary Liability and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in emerging from a minor road into a major road with restricted visibility
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent by excessive speed and reckless driving
  3. 3 Apportionment of liability between claimant and defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties were negligent: the claimant was driving at a grossly excessive and reckless speed, which was the primary cause of the accident, but the defendant also failed to exercise the degree of care required when emerging from a minor road 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

Liability apportioned 80% to claimant, 20% to defendant; judgment for claimant subject to reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant on liability, reduced by 80% for contributory negligence
  • Quantum of damages to be assessed at a later hearing