Corbin v Dorynek [2022] JRC 047 (16 February 2022)

Corbin v Dorynek [2022] JRC 047 (16 February 2022)

Both Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath failed to keep a proper lookout as required by Rule 5 of the Colregs. Mr Dorynek admitted liability for failing to keep a proper lookout. The court found that Mr Flath was also negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout, which was a causative factor in the collision. Apportionment of liability was required between Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath for Mr Corbin's claim, and contributory negligence was assessed in Mr Flath's claim against Mr Dorynek.

Citation
[2022] JRC 047
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Corbin; First Defendant: Mr Dorynek; Second Defendant: Mr Flath
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence (personal Injury) / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Liability apportioned between Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath; both found negligent.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Apportionment of Liability, Contributory Negligence, Maritime Collision, Application of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (colregs)
Tort Law Maritime Law Negligence Personal Injury Apportionment of Liability Contributory Negligence Maritime Collision Application of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (colregs)

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Corbin

Plaintiff

Mr Dorynek

First Defendant

Mr Flath

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence (personal Injury) / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Flath (Jet Ski driver) was negligent in the collision with the Speedboat
  2. 2 Apportionment of liability between Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath for Mr Corbin's injuries
  3. 3 Level of contributory negligence by Mr Flath in his claim against Mr Dorynek

Ratio Decidendi

Both Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath failed to keep a proper lookout as required by Rule 5 of the Colregs. Mr Dorynek admitted liability for failing to keep a proper lookout. The court found that Mr Flath was also negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout, which was a causative factor in the collision. Apportionment of liability was required between Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath for Mr Corbin's claim, and contributory negligence was assessed in Mr Flath's claim against Mr Dorynek.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned between Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath; both found negligent.

Orders

  • Mr Corbin entitled to damages with liability apportioned between Mr Dorynek and Mr Flath (exact apportionment to be determined).
  • Mr Flath's contributory negligence to be assessed in his claim against Mr Dorynek.