piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

NO REASONABLE DRUNKS

In the leading case of  Owens v Brimmell [1977] QB 859, a passenger who was injured in a car accident had his damages reduced by 20% because he had accepted a ride with a driver whom must have known had too much to drink. In a much quoted dictum, Russell J held:             “A passenger may be guilty of contributory negligence if ... [More]

CONTRIBUTING TO LITIGATION

In Onay v Brown [2009] EWCA Civ 775, the Defendant car driver admitted liability and consented to the entry of judgment against him,  the sole remaining issue on liability being whether the Claimant motorcyclist was speeding and/or failing to keep a proper lookout and was therefore contributorily negligent. 25 days before trial the Defendant offered to settle on the basis that the Claimant ... [More]

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

My sangfroid is always tested whenever an opponent smugly submits: “Well, X can always sue his solicitor”.   Really.  What use is that?  Jobs for the boys (and girls).  How is justice served by promoting satellite litigation?   In Sowerby v Charlton [2006] 1 WLR 568, the Court of Appeal approved a dictum of  Sumner J in Braybrook v Basildon & Thurrock ... [More]

COSTS AFTER A SPLIT TRIAL-THE BLACK HOLE

1.      Just over five years ago, there was an unfathomable change to the Part 36 rules on split trials which, it turns out, gives a huge incentive to defendants to make a monetary Part 36 offer before any split trial that is ordered.   2.      Prior to 6th April 2007, the matter was dealt with by Part 36.19.  Part 36.19, entitled Restric... [More]

“IT WAS THE WORST OF TIMES…”.

The discount for loss of a chance is not confined to future losses.  It also applies to the hypothetical past. Many injured claimants had plans to start work or resume work only for such plans to be delayed or obliterated by an injury. Defendants shouldn’t assume that claimants who were unemployed at the time of the accident would have obtained employment, just because they say so. ... [More]

FIRST THE FACTS, THEN THE HYPOTHESIS

Beware of Rehman v Estate of JG Brady [2012] EWHC 78.  Claimants and Defendants should note that it contains a serious error of principle.                                     Facts:  A seven year old girl “hu... [More]

GAME CHANGER

Don’t you love it when a judge mulls over two competing accident reconstruction reports, selects what he thinks is most probable, and then finds as a fact that that is how the accident happened….grrrrr.  Welcome to the fantasy land of the balance of probabilities. More...