Funston v Kerr [2013] NICA 81 (19 December 2013)

Funston v Kerr [2013] NICA 81 (19 December 2013)

The appellant ran into the outer lane immediately in front of the first respondent's car, leaving no realistic prospect for the first respondent to avoid the collision. The first respondent was travelling at a reasonable speed and could not have anticipated the appellant's sudden emergence. The trial judge correctly identified the real issue and concluded there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent.

Citation
[2013] NICA 81
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Ivan Funston; First Respondent/defendant: Jonathan Kerr; Second Respondent/defendant: Charlotte Kerr; Third Party (oil Tanker Driver): Alan Wright; Third Party (owner of Oil Tanker): DCC Energy (NI) Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Traffic Accident, Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Liability
Tort Personal Injury Negligence Road Traffic Accident Duty of Care Standard of Care Liability

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Funston

Appellant/plaintiff

Jonathan Kerr

First Respondent/defendant

Charlotte Kerr

Second Respondent/defendant

Alan Wright

Third Party (oil Tanker Driver)

DCC Energy (NI) Limited

Third Party (owner of Oil Tanker)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent was negligent in failing to avoid colliding with the appellant pedestrian
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the standard of care owed by a motorist to a pedestrian
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected himself regarding the facts and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant ran into the outer lane immediately in front of the first respondent's car, leaving no realistic prospect for the first respondent to avoid the collision. The first respondent was travelling at a reasonable speed and could not have anticipated the appellant's sudden emergence. The trial judge correctly identified the real issue and concluded there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages for negligence dismissed
  • No liability found against the respondents