Houghton v Stannard
The claimant's Metro, with hazard warning lights on and positioned close to the nearside edge, did not present a dangerous obstruction. The defendant had ample opportunity to see and avoid the stationary vehicle. The claimant acted reasonably and allegations of contributory negligence are rejected.
- Parties
- Claimant: Houghton; Defendant: Stannard
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 29 October 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Running Down Action / Judgment on Contributory Negligence
- Outcome
- Allegations of contributory negligence rejected; defendant found negligent as admitted.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Accident
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Houghton
Claimant
Stannard
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Running Down Action / Judgment on Contributory Negligence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence for driving a car at risk of breakdown, failing to park completely off the road, and remaining in the stationary vehicle on the carriageway
Ratio Decidendi
The claimant's Metro, with hazard warning lights on and positioned close to the nearside edge, did not present a dangerous obstruction. The defendant had ample opportunity to see and avoid the stationary vehicle. The claimant acted reasonably and allegations of contributory negligence are rejected.
Court Disposition
Allegations of contributory negligence rejected; defendant found negligent as admitted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment