Driver not liable for injuries caused

[Pro Bono]

After the interesting debate on whether a driver who claimed to have blacked out could be held liable for damage she caused there's another case just been heard in Manchester where the driver, though seriously injuring a pedestrian, was held not liable for those injuries.

The case is Mohmed v Barnes & Anor [2019] EWHC 87 (QB), and for those who have the time and inclination to read the judgment it's here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/87.htm...

In simple terms the driver, a lad called Elliot Barnes, was visiting McDonald's in Bolton with some friends. As they were in the car park they got into an altercation with some Asian lads. Two Asian men in a neighbouring car also got involved, and EB's car was under attack. He panicked, and drove off, running over one of the men from the neighbouring car, Suhail Mohmed, as he fled the scene.

Mr Mohmed apparently suffered serious injuries, and sued EB (who was also prosecuted but acquitted).

The judge said that in the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable for EB to have driven off at speed, and that in the circumstances he couldn't be blamed for having run over SM.

So the claim was dismissed, and SM will receive no compensation.

It's another illustration of the fact that just because someone is injured by a car it doesn't mean that the driver of the car will be liable, or that the injured person will recover compensation.

[macushla]

I read as far as “China Town” and gave up. It’s a McDonalds in a building that used to house the China Garden restaurant, but it’s in an area called Daubhill (pronounced Dobble).

Rest of your summary makes sense, as does the judgment. He was scared for his safety and got out of there as quickly as possible.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Court decided he wasn't negligent. Different circumstances to the blackout but the same principle applies.

[selmahoose]

Easy to see that case succeeding at appeal.

[hutchst]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Court decided he wasn't negligent. Different circumstances to the blackout but the same principle applies.

I suspect the not guilty verdict in the criminal trial was instrumental. Criminal conviction is admissible as prima facie evidence of negligence in civil courts. I accept that it does not neccessarily follow that absence of conviction does not equate to absence of negligence, but it does create a significant obstacle for the claimant.

[Escort3500]

selmahoose said:

Easy to see that case succeeding at appeal.

On what grounds? (Genuinely interested, not trolling!)

[macushla]

hutchst said:

I suspect the not guilty verdict in the criminal trial was instrumental. Criminal conviction is admissible as prima facie evidence of negligence in civil courts. I accept that it does not neccessarily follow that absence of conviction does not equate to absence of negligence, but it does create a significant obstacle for the claimant.

I couldn’t disagree more. The burden of proof* is much lower in a civil case compared to a criminal one and this is even referenced by the Judge is his judgment (points 26). It seems much more likely that the credibility of the witnesses was much more instrumental amd this is referenced in depth points 29,30 amd most damningly 36

* I’m sure janesmith1950 will be along soon to mock me for using this phrase, but I’d just point her to point 26(ii) and see if she’s as keen to mock a judge.

[macushla]

selmahoose said:

Easy to see that case succeeding at appeal.

I’m not convinced it would succeed, the credibility of the claimant was seriously questioned amd the judge even stated that he believes he was lying in his witness statement and was unreliable under cross examination.

[selmahoose]

macushla said:

....... the credibility of the claimant was seriously questioned amd the judge even stated that he believes he was lying in his witness statement and was unreliable under cross examination.

Think you're confusing the claimant's witness (Bagas) with the claimant (Mohmed) of whom the judge said: "I am less critical of the claimant, etc ".

Edited by selmahoose on Tuesday 29th January 11:26

[Trax]

The use of the P word by some of the girls whilst being chased out of McDonalds by a large group of Asian males, seems to be used as an excuse for their behaviour, but no mention was made of the obvious racist motivation of the Asian group against the non Asian group? They did chase them out saying they shouldn't be in this area......

[TwigtheWonderkid]

selmahoose said:

Think you're confusing the claimant's witness (Bagas) with the claimant (Mohmed) of whom the judge said: "I am less critical of the claimant, etc ".

Edited by selmahoose on Tuesday 29th January 11:26

The injured tp could have been a completely innocent bystander, with no connection to any of the stuff that went on before. But if the driver was judged not have acted negligently, then he isn't liable for the injuries caused. .

[macushla]

Trax said:

The use of the P word by some of the girls whilst being chased out of McDonalds by a large group of Asian males, seems to be used as an excuse for their behaviour, but no mention was made of the obvious racist motivation of the Asian group against the non Asian group? They did chase them out saying they shouldn't be in this area......

Because it’s irrelevant for the defendant in his insurance claim and not overly relevant for the claimant, other than to try to make it out as a race related crime.

[Durzel]

"This trivial altercation, nourished by testosterone" is a fantastically matter of fact turn of phrase.

[AlexRS2782]

Durzel said:

"This trivial altercation, nourished by testosterone" is a fantastically matter of fact turn of phrase.

Also an accurate description for how some threads on PH end up when the bhing & bickering kicks off

[MB140]

So from that the man run over was involved in the altercation if I understand it correctly and as EB drove away he ran over one of the assailants threatening EB. Judgement seems fair in my opinion. Don’t go round attacking people.

Not really the same as someone blacking out at the wheel and hitting someone/something.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MB140 said:

So from that the man run over was involved in the altercation if I understand it correctly and as EB drove away he ran over one of the assailants threatening EB. Judgement seems fair in my opinion. Don’t go round attacking people.

Not really the same as someone blacking out at the wheel and hitting someone/something.

In terms of lack of negligence, it's the same. Driver would not be liable if he'd hit an innocent bystander following the altercation.

[anonymous-user]

MB140 said:

So from that the man run over was involved in the altercation if I understand it correctly and as EB drove away he ran over one of the assailants threatening EB. Judgement seems fair in my opinion. Don’t go round attacking people.

Not really the same as someone blacking out at the wheel and hitting someone/something.

Did you read the judgmment? The man run over was not one of the assailants in the altercation. You have just libelled the guy!

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 30th January 09:18