lOMoARcPSD|59658805
Case Report Main Coursework
law of tort and legal reasoning (Nottingham Trent University)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
, lOMoARcPSD|59658805
Taylor v Raspin, [2023] P.I.Q.R. P8 (2022)
For educational use only
*P231 Taylor v Raspin
No Substantial Judicial Treatment
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment Date
7 December 2022
Report Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 1613
[2023] P.I.Q.R. P8
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Peter Jackson ; Nicola Davies ; William Davis LJJ
7 December 2022
Causation; Drivers; Duty of care; Personal injury; Road traffic accidents;
H1 Personal injuries—road traffic collision—liability—liability car pulling out in path of oncoming motorcycle—whether driver
should have looked more than once—speed—expert evidence—lay evidence
H2. R brought an action against T for damages for personal injuries and loss suffered as a result of a road traffic accident.
R was riding a motorcycle when T turned out of a junction in front of him to his right, and collided with him. T had seen
no vehicles on the main road travelling in either direction when she pulled out, although the evidence showed that there
were vehicles travelling towards her from her right. Lay witnesses at the scene assessed R to have been travelling at about
30 mph. The expert evidence assessed his speed to have been greater. The trial judge found that T was negligent in failing
to look left for a second time after she pulled out, and that T continued to pull out into the path of the motorcycle when
it should have been visible to her, but that R was 45% contributorily negligent for riding at excessive speed. T appealed.
There was no cross appeal.
H3. Held, dismissing T’s appeal, that it was axiomatic that a driver emerging from a minor road onto a major road owed a
continuing duty to vehicles on the major road. How the duty was fulfilled depended on the circumstances, but here T should
have checked for a second time. The speed of the motorcycle was relevant to the issue of contributory negligence, but it
could not be said to be unforeseeable that a vehicle travelling along the major road would not have been exceeding the speed
limit to a significant degree.
H4. The trial judge’s approach to the expert evidence could be criticised, however, in view of the consistent eye witness
accounts about R’s speed, and he paid insufficient regard to T’s failure to see approaching vehicles when assessing the
effectiveness of her observation. The expert evidence was not central to the case; the lay evidence had established that R
pulled out of a minor road and continued to pull out even when the motorcycle was in view and she could have stopped.
H5 Cases considered:
Lambert v Clayton [2009] EWCA Civ 237; [2010] R.T.R. 3
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. 1
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
Case Report Main Coursework
law of tort and legal reasoning (Nottingham Trent University)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
, lOMoARcPSD|59658805
Taylor v Raspin, [2023] P.I.Q.R. P8 (2022)
For educational use only
*P231 Taylor v Raspin
No Substantial Judicial Treatment
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment Date
7 December 2022
Report Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 1613
[2023] P.I.Q.R. P8
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Peter Jackson ; Nicola Davies ; William Davis LJJ
7 December 2022
Causation; Drivers; Duty of care; Personal injury; Road traffic accidents;
H1 Personal injuries—road traffic collision—liability—liability car pulling out in path of oncoming motorcycle—whether driver
should have looked more than once—speed—expert evidence—lay evidence
H2. R brought an action against T for damages for personal injuries and loss suffered as a result of a road traffic accident.
R was riding a motorcycle when T turned out of a junction in front of him to his right, and collided with him. T had seen
no vehicles on the main road travelling in either direction when she pulled out, although the evidence showed that there
were vehicles travelling towards her from her right. Lay witnesses at the scene assessed R to have been travelling at about
30 mph. The expert evidence assessed his speed to have been greater. The trial judge found that T was negligent in failing
to look left for a second time after she pulled out, and that T continued to pull out into the path of the motorcycle when
it should have been visible to her, but that R was 45% contributorily negligent for riding at excessive speed. T appealed.
There was no cross appeal.
H3. Held, dismissing T’s appeal, that it was axiomatic that a driver emerging from a minor road onto a major road owed a
continuing duty to vehicles on the major road. How the duty was fulfilled depended on the circumstances, but here T should
have checked for a second time. The speed of the motorcycle was relevant to the issue of contributory negligence, but it
could not be said to be unforeseeable that a vehicle travelling along the major road would not have been exceeding the speed
limit to a significant degree.
H4. The trial judge’s approach to the expert evidence could be criticised, however, in view of the consistent eye witness
accounts about R’s speed, and he paid insufficient regard to T’s failure to see approaching vehicles when assessing the
effectiveness of her observation. The expert evidence was not central to the case; the lay evidence had established that R
pulled out of a minor road and continued to pull out even when the motorcycle was in view and she could have stopped.
H5 Cases considered:
Lambert v Clayton [2009] EWCA Civ 237; [2010] R.T.R. 3
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. 1
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
