Description
Court of Appeal found No Reason to Interfere with Judge's Apportionment of Liability:The Appellant appealed against a decision that he was 40% responsible for a collision with a motorcyclist who had been travelling too close behind at an excessive speed; the Appellant had stopped due to a tyre blow out and failed to put out a warning triangle. The Court of Appeal found that, although the trial judge had not given reasons for his decision on apportionment, there was no reason to interfere with that decision. If he had analysed the two acts of negligence he would have been entitled to conclude that they were of equal causative potency.
