In a recent case involving an application to permit naso-gastric feeding of a 12-year-old girl,...
A motorcyclist who suffered life-changing injuries when he collided with a car has succeeded in his claim of liability against the car's driver.
The motorcyclist, then aged 55, collided with the back of the car, which also struck a car in front of it. There was a dispute as to which of these collisions had happened first. He sustained spinal injuries that rendered him tetraplegic.
He brought a claim against the driver of the car he had collided with, alleging that his injuries had been caused by the driver's negligence. The driver denied that he had been negligent and claimed that the accident had been caused wholly or partly by the motorcyclist's own negligence.
Ruling on the issue of liability, the High Court took account of evidence from eyewitnesses, including a police officer who had attended the scene, and road accident experts. The experts agreed that the first collision had occurred when the driver hit the car in front, which led to his car coming to a halt more quickly than could have been achieved by braking. The motorcyclist had then come off his motorbike and hit the car.
The Court was satisfied that the car's speed had been at least 35 mph before the collision. It found that the driver had been travelling too quickly and/or far too close to the car in front, in view of the stop-start nature of the traffic. In doing so, he had fallen below the requisite standard of care. The resulting collision had reduced the stopping distance available to the motorcyclist.
The Court considered that the motorcyclist had also failed to take appropriate measures in regard to the traffic conditions, and his negligence had more likely than not contributed to his injuries. However, he had likely been travelling at less than 25 mph when he hit the car, and had had the additional difficulty of the reduced stopping distance available to him as a result of the driver's negligence.
The Court gave judgment for the motorcyclist on the issue of liability, ruling that his damages should be reduced by 25 per cent to reflect his contributory negligence.