The Judge found that although the Defendant's positioning was inadequate, responsibility for the accident lay with the Claimant for braking negligently or recklessly when there was no hazard. The Judge then considered contributory negligence on the Defendant's part in light of his positioning, but held that given the circumstances and that the Claimant had applied his brakes for no good reason and without warning, the Defendant should not be liable and the Claimant's personal injury claim was dismissed.

The Claimant appealed the decision submitting that the Judge had erred in his decision and that if the Defendant was shown to be negligent, it would then go on to determine if the Claimant was also guilty of some fault and an apportionment should be made in accordance with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1.

It was held the collision could have been avoided if the Defendant had driven with more care and distance from the Claimant's vehicle and the Judge was wrong in not finding the Defendant at fault.  Although the Claimant was also at fault for braking sharply, the Defendant was more to blame than the Claimant for the accident. An apportionment of 60 per cent was made against the Defendant and 40 per cent against the Claimant.

Drivers should be warned not only to keep your distance from the car in front but drivers should not brake unnecessarily and be aware of vehicles behind!



Julie Donovan
Senior Legal Executive - Personal Injury team