Jessop v Nixon

Jessop v Nixon

The defendant took all reasonable care when performing his manoeuvre given the restricted visibility and was not negligent. The accident occurred solely due to the claimant's reckless and excessive speed, which was about twice the appropriate speed for the circumstances. Had the claimant been driving prudently, he would have had ample time to avoid the collision. The claim fails as the defendant was not liable.

Parties
Claimant: Robert Jessop (A Protected Party suing 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 Road Traffic Accident / Trial on Primary Liability and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Claim dismissed
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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Jessop (A Protected Party suing by his mother and Litigation Friend, Veronica Rundle)

Claimant

Mark Stuart Nixon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Trial on 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 or wholly responsible for the accident due to excessive speed and manner of driving

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant took all reasonable care when performing his manoeuvre given the restricted visibility and was not negligent. The accident occurred solely due to the claimant's reckless and excessive speed, which was about twice the appropriate speed for the circumstances. Had the claimant been driving prudently, he would have had ample time to avoid the collision. The claim fails as the defendant was not liable.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed