Whittle v Bennett

Whittle v Bennett

The respondent's speed and following distance, even if in breach of the Highway Code, were not causative of the accident. The appellant's unexpected and grossly negligent U-turn was the sole cause. The duty to maintain a safe distance was not owed to the appellant in these circumstances, and the accident would not have been avoided even if the respondent had complied with the speed limit and recommended distance.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: John Whittle (A Patient by his litigation friend Deborah Heron); Defendant/respondent: James Bennett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability

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

John Whittle (A Patient by his litigation friend Deborah Heron)

Claimant/appellant

James Bennett

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was negligent in speed and following distance
  2. 2 Whether any negligence was causative of the accident
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's contributory negligence precluded recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's speed and following distance, even if in breach of the Highway Code, were not causative of the accident. The appellant's unexpected and grossly negligent U-turn was the sole cause. The duty to maintain a safe distance was not owed to the appellant in these circumstances, and the accident would not have been avoided even if the respondent had complied with the speed limit and recommended distance.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.