The CA upheld a finding that a pedestrian (B) was two-thirds to blame for his injuries when he ran across a road in front of the Defendant's taxi (P) at an unregulated crossing.
HHJ Walton found that P should have seen B, but that B "took a risk setting off when, unless the driver took some avoiding action, an accident was likely". The CA concurred. P should have eased off the accelerator, but B should not have run into the road; B was "far more to blame".
/ 1st Jul 2011
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.