tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post2528399026624540621..comments2024-03-28T09:08:50.733+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: High Court judgment on liability for 2008 accident in LeicesterObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-60871664000072136062013-01-23T17:44:24.179+00:002013-01-23T17:44:24.179+00:00Nettleship v Weston
Compulsory insurance required...<a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1971/6.html" rel="nofollow">Nettleship v Weston</a><br /><br />Compulsory insurance required by statute law led the Court of Appeal to conclude that no allowance should be made for learner drivers.<br /><br />Insurance cover was relevant in Nettleship v Weston because the existence of insurance made it undesirable for the court to permit any lower standard for learner drivers. Any other decision would result in injured parties obtaining less than they ought to obtain. However, when it comes to an assessment such as that required in Ayres v Odedra, the relevant question relates to apportioning liability.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-31283432574758792402013-01-23T11:00:01.955+00:002013-01-23T11:00:01.955+00:00ObiterJ - that's interesting. How is that line...ObiterJ - that's interesting. How is that line of argument reconciled with the principle (in eg Nettleship v. Weston [1971] 2 QB 691) that the insurance position is relevant to the consideration of where liability should fall?casus fortuitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01274553377087837627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-68339785215030923572013-01-22T12:36:57.176+00:002013-01-22T12:36:57.176+00:00It is common for people to claim that judges decid...It is common for people to claim that judges decide against motorists because they have to be insured.<br /><br />There are several cases in which judges have stated that the insurance positions of the parties should be ignored when determining liability e.g. Morgans v Launchbury [1973] AC 127. As far as I know, this is still good law.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-42644513642933709032013-01-22T11:18:09.624+00:002013-01-22T11:18:09.624+00:00The principles for apportioning liability are set ...The principles for apportioning liability are set out at paras 145 onwards of Swift J's judgment where the case law is discussed. The pedestrian is only rarely to be held more liable for the damage which occurred than a driver.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-86745327118872722162013-01-22T10:53:32.141+00:002013-01-22T10:53:32.141+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-87602482948013543102013-01-22T08:55:10.390+00:002013-01-22T08:55:10.390+00:00"Yet again the motorist is to blame. It surel..."Yet again the motorist is to blame. It surely can't be because he has insurance, can it?"<br /><br />Actually, this is very often a consideration of the court when it determines liability in cases of negligence. It has to decide, as a matter of public policy, who is most able to bear losses. Do you disagree with this principle? If so, why?casus fortuitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01274553377087837627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-57719691067367644302013-01-21T18:02:30.279+00:002013-01-21T18:02:30.279+00:00Thank you for the links. The fact that this was a...Thank you for the links. The fact that this was a pedestrianised area was mentioned in the judgment though certain types of vehicle were permitted. However, as far as I can tell, this fact did not in any way affect liability.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-71102328736219888202013-01-21T16:04:58.820+00:002013-01-21T16:04:58.820+00:00If you can't stop safely in the space you can ...If you can't stop safely in the space you can see ahead, you are driving too fast. There are no exceptions to this. Mr Ayres was stationary. Mr Odedra has no excuse.Ed (not Bystander)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-76296783903486357882013-01-21T15:46:22.682+00:002013-01-21T15:46:22.682+00:00Happily, Google street view can provide us with so...Happily, Google street view can provide us with some help with context. The incident occurred somewhere around the pedestrian crossing <a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Horsefair+Street,+Leicester&hl=en&ll=52.634378,-1.131863&spn=0.000296,0.00053&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=9.404366,17.358398&oq=horsefa&t=h&hnear=Horsefair+St,+Leicester,+United+Kingdom&z=21&layer=c&cbll=52.634378,-1.131863&panoid=GGxC8HbqBRQJnzlNNG6NZw&cbp=12,65.69,,0,0" rel="nofollow">here</a>, in the depths of a pedestrian zone (entry sign <a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Horsefair+Street,+Leicester&hl=en&ll=52.633597,-1.133504&spn=0.000133,0.00053&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=9.404366,17.358398&oq=horsefa&t=h&hnear=Horsefair+St,+Leicester,+United+Kingdom&z=21&layer=c&cbll=52.633597,-1.133504&panoid=xdZf8UaezOHVtK9Bn8bdWg&cbp=11,8.51,,2,-10" rel="nofollow">here</a>).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-83422643050170030342013-01-20T20:19:59.034+00:002013-01-20T20:19:59.034+00:00Swift J is one of the best there is - trained by D...Swift J is one of the best there is - trained by Dame Janet Smith no less.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-41029155706409096902013-01-20T09:37:41.056+00:002013-01-20T09:37:41.056+00:00Only 20% to blame for his own misfortune ? Where ...Only 20% to blame for his own misfortune ? Where does this judge live ! More like 95%<br /><br />Yet again the motorist is to blame. It surely can't be because he has insurance, can it ?Frasnoreply@blogger.com