Negligence Claim after a Road Accident Injuring a Cyclist
In an important case covering duty of care during excavation work a 56 year old housewife, Ms, C sought damages from T, a joiner and small building contractor.
Ms C sought damages in respect of injuries sustained after she went over the handlebars of her bicycle near a site on which T was working. She claimed that she fell from her bicycle as a result of debris left on the road following work contracted out by T to M, a company specialising in excavation. Ms C endured serious and painful injuries, losing a crown from her tooth, suffering a broken jaw and a collapsed lung.
Ms C argued that it would reasonable to anticipate the danger of debris causing an accident. She asserted that (1) it should have been anticipated that some debris would contaminate the road and it was Ts duty to take reasonable care to avoid deposits or remove any as soon as was reasonably possible; and (2) T could not escape liability even if he proved that M were independent contractors: the hiring of plant and drivers to do a job under the direction of the main contractor was not a subcontract.
The action was dismissed because it was held that (1) there was insufficient evidence to conclude what had caused Ms C to fall, and witness statements did not support her account of what happened. (2) It was not proved that T knew the road was subjected to deposits of mud to a material extent as to make it reasonably foreseeable that passing cyclists might come to harm, furthermore, the fact that deposits were 150 yards from the site of the accident made it less likely that the incident was a foreseeable consequence of the work.
It was observed by the court that it was clear from the evidence that the relationship between T and M was more than just a hiring of equipment, and had the matter gone to debate earlier, it might well be that the issue of whether Ms C had pled enough to found a case on the neighbourhood principle would have been resolved out of court.
It was the court's opinion, that had liability been established, the parties were agreed that compensation of damages would have been assessed at £12,360 at 4 per cent from the date of the accident to the date of decree, with loss for "hurt" at £294 with interest at 8 per cent, and patrimonial loss in respect of dental costs at £643 with interest on £243 from 1 January 2002 until the date of decree, less the deduction of 25 per cent for contributory negligence.
Ms C sought damages in respect of injuries sustained after she went over the handlebars of her bicycle near a site on which T was working. She claimed that she fell from her bicycle as a result of debris left on the road following work contracted out by T to M, a company specialising in excavation. Ms C endured serious and painful injuries, losing a crown from her tooth, suffering a broken jaw and a collapsed lung.
Ms C argued that it would reasonable to anticipate the danger of debris causing an accident. She asserted that (1) it should have been anticipated that some debris would contaminate the road and it was Ts duty to take reasonable care to avoid deposits or remove any as soon as was reasonably possible; and (2) T could not escape liability even if he proved that M were independent contractors: the hiring of plant and drivers to do a job under the direction of the main contractor was not a subcontract.
The action was dismissed because it was held that (1) there was insufficient evidence to conclude what had caused Ms C to fall, and witness statements did not support her account of what happened. (2) It was not proved that T knew the road was subjected to deposits of mud to a material extent as to make it reasonably foreseeable that passing cyclists might come to harm, furthermore, the fact that deposits were 150 yards from the site of the accident made it less likely that the incident was a foreseeable consequence of the work.
It was observed by the court that it was clear from the evidence that the relationship between T and M was more than just a hiring of equipment, and had the matter gone to debate earlier, it might well be that the issue of whether Ms C had pled enough to found a case on the neighbourhood principle would have been resolved out of court.
It was the court's opinion, that had liability been established, the parties were agreed that compensation of damages would have been assessed at £12,360 at 4 per cent from the date of the accident to the date of decree, with loss for "hurt" at £294 with interest at 8 per cent, and patrimonial loss in respect of dental costs at £643 with interest on £243 from 1 January 2002 until the date of decree, less the deduction of 25 per cent for contributory negligence.
Labels: Negligence, Road Accident Claims
| posted by Quantum Claims at 10:10 AM |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home