FLR (A child by her mother and litigation friend MLR) v Dr Shanthi Chandran
[2023] EWHC 1671 (KB)
Daryl Owens v Ross Lewis
19 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 609 (KB)
High Court
Two teens were on a quad bike. The driver was reckless and the passenger got hurt. The judge said the driver was mostly at fault because he was driving too fast and the passenger shouldn't have been on the quad bike in the first place, but the passenger was also a bit at fault because they knew it was risky.
Key Facts
- •On 6 August 2020, a 16-year-old claimant was a passenger on a quad bike driven by a 15-year-old defendant.
- •The claimant suffered serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, when he fell off the quad bike.
- •The defendant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and related offences.
- •The quad bike was not designed to carry passengers.
- •The claimant was not wearing a helmet.
- •The defendant admitted primary liability for negligence in allowing the claimant to be a passenger.
- •The trial focused on the issue of contributory negligence.
Legal Principles
Apportionment of damages in contributory negligence cases requires consideration of both the blameworthiness of each party and the causative potency of their actions.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, section 1(1); Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] AC 663; Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5
A claimant's conduct is judged by the objective standard of a reasonable and prudent person, taking into account the claimant's age.
Campbell v Advantage Insurance Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1698
In assessing contributory negligence, the court must consider the matter holistically, considering both blameworthiness and causative potency, not as separate compartments.
Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107
The standard of care for a child defendant is that of an ordinarily reasonable and prudent child of the same age.
Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304; Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295
Outcomes
The court found the defendant 70% liable and the claimant 30% contributorily negligent.
The defendant's actions were deemed more blameworthy and causatively potent due to his initiative in using the quad bike unsafely, driving at excessive speed, and lack of concern for passenger safety. While the claimant was negligent in accepting the ride, the court considered the circumstances, including the defendant's greater experience and the lack of available helmets.