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 stationary vehicle with hazard lights did not present a dangerous obstruction, and the claimant acted reasonably in the circumstances. The defendant's failure to observe the stationary vehicle and hazard lights, despite clear visibility, was the sole cause of the accident.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2666
Parties
Claimant: Houghton; Defendant: Stannard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (running Down Action) / Judgment on Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Allegations of contributory negligence rejected; defendant found solely liable for negligence.
Legal Topics
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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Houghton

Claimant

Stannard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence in the circumstances of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's stationary vehicle with hazard lights constituted a dangerous obstruction
  3. 3 Whether the claimant acted reasonably after his car broke down

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not guilty of contributory negligence; the stationary vehicle with hazard lights did not present a dangerous obstruction, and the claimant acted reasonably in the circumstances. The defendant's failure to observe the stationary vehicle and hazard lights, despite clear visibility, was the sole cause of the accident.

Court Disposition

Allegations of contributory negligence rejected; defendant found solely liable for negligence.