Description
The Court of Appeal revisited the "coincidence of location" fallacy argument previously coined in
Whittle v Bennett [2006] EWCA Civ 1538.
Coincidence of location fallacy arises where a defendant acts negligently and, as a result of that negligence, he is in a position where an accident occurs, but the occurrence of that accident is not within the scope of the duty of care which the defendant breached when acting negligently. In other words, a defendant is involved in an accident as a result of his negligence, but the earlier negligence is not causative of the accident.
Proceedings arose from a road traffic accident at a complicated traffic light controlled junction in Norfolk. A collision occurred when the Defendant entered the junction after driving through a red light towards the Claimant, who in taking a right turn at the junction, failed to look ahead to see if any vehicles were approaching. At trial in the Norwich County Court, District Judge Pugh held that the Claimant's failure to look ahead to check for oncoming vehicles amounted to negligence, and that such negligence on the Claimant's part was the sole cause of the accident. The Judge declined to hold that the Defendant's breach of duty in proceeding across the junction through a red light was causative of the accident. In arriving at that decision, and relying on the "coincidence of location fallacy" argument, the Judge held that the Defendant's breach was irrelevant.
The Claimant's appeal against that judgment was dismissed by HHJ Maloney QC sitting in the Norwich County Court on 11 November 2013. Proceedings were subsequently brought by the Claimant before the Court of Appeal.
The Court's majority judgment was provided by Jackson LJ, with whom McCombe and Macur LJJ agreed. Jackson LJ allowed the Claimant's appeal on liability. He held at paragraph 30 that: "the blunt fact is that the defendant should not have been where he was at the moment of impact. Unlike the judge and district judge, I do not think that the claimant's case rests on the "coincidence of location" argument". Liability was consequently apportioned by the Court on a 50/50 basis, and a substituted award of damages made.
