Probert v Moore [2012] EWHC 2324 (QB) (09 August 2012)

Probert v Moore [2012] EWHC 2324 (QB) (09 August 2012)

The defendant was negligent in driving at a speed in excess of 50 mph on a narrow, unlit country road, failing to anticipate the presence of pedestrians, and not reducing speed for oncoming traffic. The claimant, a 13½-year-old child, did not contribute to the accident; her actions were consistent with those of an ordinary child and her use of earphones and dark clothing did not materially affect the outcome.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2324
Parties
Claimant: Bethany Probert (A Child by her Litigation Friend and Mother Joanna Probert); Defendant: Paul Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Liability Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for claimant; damages to be assessed; no contributory negligence found.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Duty of Care
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accident Duty of Care

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bethany Probert (A Child by her Litigation Friend and Mother Joanna Probert)

Claimant

Paul Moore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Liability Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant negligent in driving?
  2. 2 Did the claimant contribute to the accident (contributory negligence)?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was negligent in driving at a speed in excess of 50 mph on a narrow, unlit country road, failing to anticipate the presence of pedestrians, and not reducing speed for oncoming traffic. The claimant, a 13½-year-old child, did not contribute to the accident; her actions were consistent with those of an ordinary child and her use of earphones and dark clothing did not materially affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimant; damages to be assessed; no contributory negligence found.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal on contributory negligence refused.
  • If parties cannot agree consequential orders, matter to be relisted for directions.