Thank you for visiting BAILII today. We hope you found what you were looking for.
BAILII was founded in 2000 to provide free online access to British and Irish legal materials, and millions of people use it every year — legal educators and students, practising lawyers, the advice sector, and many more. But it is not free to operate.
BAILII is funded through donations, and we are very grateful to our existing donors. However, we need your help to meet all of our costs and ensure that our extensive collection of legal information remains freely accessible to all (without cookies or trackers). If you found BAILII useful today, would you consider making a contribution? No donation is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LEEDS COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BUSH)
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
____________________
BRIDGETTE ASKEY | Claimant/Appellant | |
-v- | ||
PAUL WOOD | Defendant/Respondent |
____________________
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR M GEORGE (instructed by the White Dalton Partnership) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MS E O'HARE (instructed by Portner & Jaskel) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"1. The report of Mr Sorton is primarily agreed.
2. The only areas of dispute remain as follows.
(a) PC Walton is unable to position the car at point of impact. Mr Sorton remains of the view that the car was on the wrong side of the road.
(b) PC Walton remains of the opinion that the damage caused to the car was by the rider and not the motorcycle although he does accept that the rider was still in contact with his motorcycle at the point of impact and that the damage to the door and sill, if caused by the motorcyclist's foot, could only occur when the foot is pressed against the side of the motorcycle.
Mr Sorton remains of the view that a large part of the damage to the car was caused by the motorcycle.
3. PC Walton's position is that he accepts that the motorcycle was on its own side of the road at point of impact, but feels unable to pin the position of the car down. He accepts that the point of impact is between the end of the skid marks and the start of the scratch marks.
Given the agreement that the foot had to be pressed against the motorcycle (assuming low damage to the car from the foot or footpeg) Mr Sorton's position is that the motorcycle had to be upright and therefore impact must have occurred well before the machine was sliding on its side."
"But the fact of the matter is that the Defendant was approaching this blind bend at sixty miles an hour, and in my judgment the accident and its consequences resulted from the Defendant's excessive speed, and also from the Claimant's position in the road. I find that the Claimant was travelling at about twenty-five miles per hour.
"In the circumstances in my judgment both of the parties were negligent and I assess their negligence as being equally causative and equally blameworthy, and accordingly in my judgment both are equally responsible in law for this accident."
1. The learned judge failed to consider whether the accident occurred as a result of the negligence on the part of the appellant properly or at all.2. The learned judge failed to consider the blameworthiness of the parties properly or at all.
3. The learned judge failed to have proper regard to the appellant's share in the responsibility for the damage.
4. The learned judge failed to determine whether evidence pertinent to the above matters was accepted or rejected.
5. The reasoning of the learned judge was deficient.
6. The decision was not just and equitable.
Order: appeal dismissed. The appellant to pay the respondent's costs, summarily assessed in the sum of £3,000 plus VAT.