Gray v Botwright
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
- LADY JUSTICE MACUR
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a traffic accident where the claimant collided with the defendant, who ran a red light. The Norwich County Court found the claimant solely negligent, a finding upheld by a circuit judge. Upon further appeal, the Court of Appeal found both parties equally at fault and distributed liability 50/50, though it refused to alter the lower court's award of damages. Key issues included the application of the coincidence of location fallacy and the extent of the defendant's duty of care upon running a red light.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON:
This judgment is in four parts, namely:
Part one. Introduction;
Part two. The facts;
Part three. The present proceedings;
Part four. The appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Part one. Introduction
This is an appeal on liability and quantum in a running down case. The point of interest in this appeal is whether the "coincidence of location" fallacy is relevant to this case. That is why Sir Stephen Sedley granted permission to appeal having considered the matter on the papers.
The coincidence of location fallacy may be illustrated by the following hypothetical facts, which are not this case. A defendant acts negligently and, as a result of that negligence, he is in a position where an accident of some sort occurs, but the occurrence of that accident was not within the scope of the duty of care which the defendant breached when acting negligently. Suppose, for example, a motorist drives at excessive speed between point A and point B. The motorist then slows down to a proper speed and is involved in a collision which is not his fault. The motorist would not have been at the point of impact if he had not driven too fast on an earlier occasion, but that earlier negligence of driving too fast is not causative of the collision. This is because once the motorist had passed point B, he was at a location where the impact would not be within the scope of any duty of care which the defendant had breached. That, as I say, is the point of interest in this case and is the reason why permission to appeal was granted.
After these introductory remarks, I must now turn to the facts.
Part two. The facts
On the afternoon of 5 July 2010, the claimant was driving northwards along the A143 road in Norfolk in a blue Ford Focus motor car. The defendant was driving southwards along the same road in a white Hyundai motor car.
Where the A143 road passes through the village of Bradwell there is a somewhat complicated junction. At this point, the A143 is called Beccles Road. As one travels north up Beccles Road, there is a turning to the left into Church Lane, then a turning to the right into Long Lane, then another turning to the left into Mill Lane. A set of 11 different traffic lights controls the flow of traffic between Church Lane, Long Lane, Mill Lane and Beccles Road.
Mr Tim Livermore of Norfolk County Council has produced a very helpful plan of this long staggered junction as he describes it, together with an explanation of the phasin