Darren Scott v Nicholas Joseph Gavigan [2016] EWCA Civ 544

The gross carelessness of a pedestrian in running across a road into the path of an oncoming moped driver was not foreseeable and meant that the pedestrian was wholly responsible for the road traffic accident.

However, the court noted that it was doubtful that the pedestrian’s behaviour was a new intervening act (as had been suggested by the trial judge). It was not that uncommon for a claimant to run out into the road carelessly or recklessly. A defendant who collided with such a claimant might not be held negligent (as in this case) or the claimant might be found contributorily negligent to a high degree. Nevertheless, the reason for imposing liability on a defendant was because he should have foreseen a risk and he owed a duty of care not to injure even the foolish. Although recklessness could be sufficient to break the chain of causation, it would be exceptional for a claimant who had established foreseeability, negligence, and causation to be denied any remedy.

July 15, 2016 В· Editorial Team В· Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases