Houghton v Stannard [2003] EWHC 2666 (QB) (29 October 2003)

Houghton v Stannard [2003] EWHC 2666 (QB) (29 October 2003)

The claimant was not guilty of contributory negligence; the evidence did not establish that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances by stopping where he did, failing to move further off the road, or remaining in the car. The stationary car with hazard warning lights did not present a dangerous obstruction, and the defendant's failure to observe the car and its lights was the sole cause of the accident.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2666 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Houghton; Defendant: Stannard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (running Down Action) / Trial Judgment on Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Allegations of contributory negligence rejected; defendant found liable for negligence as admitted.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Obstruction on Highway, Standard of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Road Traffic Accidents Obstruction on Highway Standard 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Houghton

Claimant

Stannard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (running Down Action) / Trial Judgment on Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence for the accident by (1) driving a car at risk of breakdown, (2) failing to park completely off the road, and (3) remaining in the stationary car on the carriageway.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not guilty of contributory negligence; the evidence did not establish that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances by stopping where he did, failing to move further off the road, or remaining in the car. The stationary car with hazard warning lights did not present a dangerous obstruction, and the defendant's failure to observe the car and its lights was the sole cause of the accident.

Court Disposition

Allegations of contributory negligence rejected; defendant found liable for negligence as admitted.