Motorcycle Accident Solicitors And Motorcycle Injury Claims - http://motorbikeclaims.org.uk
Jukes v Etti
http://motorbikeclaims.org.uk/articles/134/1/Jukes-v-Etti/Page1.html
Bike Accident Solicitor
Hutcheon Solicitors is a Law Firm specialising in Motorbike Accident Injury Claims and legal protection for people with vulnerable circumstances in the UK  
By Bike Accident Solicitor
Published on 13 March 2008
 
Abstract: The claimant pedestrian (J) sought damages for negligence from the defendant car driver (E). J had been attempting to cross a dual carriageway at night-time after alighting from a bus when he was struck by E's car. J's injuries were such that he was unable to give evidence seven years later. It was argued on his behalf that the nearside headlight of E's car was not working and J had therefore been under the impression that a motorbike was approaching until it was too late to take evasive action. He had attempted to outrun the car but had failed. E contended that J was contributorily negligent by not taking proper care when crossing.

Jukes v Etti Accident Compensation Claim

The claimant pedestrian (J) sought damages for negligence from the defendant car driver (E). J had been attempting to cross a dual carriageway at night-time after alighting from a bus when he was struck by E's car. J's injuries were such that he was unable to give evidence seven years later. It was argued on his behalf that the nearside headlight of E's car was not working and J had therefore been under the impression that a motorbike was approaching until it was too late to take evasive action. He had attempted to outrun the car but had failed. E contended that J was contributorily negligent by not taking proper care when crossing.

Judgment for claimant. It was clear that E had failed to take reasonable care to look out for pedestrians who might have been stepping out after getting off the bus. J had seen the car before impact, so there was no reason why E should not have had time to brake had he been keeping a proper look-out. E could also have taken evasive action by turning into the other lane to allow J to get out of the way, as he was trying to do. However, J had clearly not been taking appropriate care either. He had attempted to cross the dual carriageway by stepping out into it to see if traffic was approaching and whether it would give way to him. When he realised E's car was not going to give way, he attempted to run to the other side of the road. The damaged headlight might have led him to hesitate, but did not impact on his overall failure to take proper care. E's liability was reduced by 40 per cent to reflect J's contributory negligence.

Judge: Holland, J.

Counsel: For the claimant: Robert Glancy QC. For the defendant: Ralph Lewis QC

Solicitor: For the claimant: Irwin Mitchell. For the defendant: Weightman Vizards (Liverpool)