Powell v Moody

Last updated

Powell v Moody is English case law, often used for the settlement of civil claims brought as the result of road traffic collisions. [1] The case was decided in 1966.

Contents

A recent case (Davis v Schrogin 2006) is lately quoted as a defence to Powell v Moody. However, Davis v Schrogin does not supersede Powell v Moody and that the latter is still considered in out-of-court settlements. This is because in the case of Davis v Schogin, the car driver emerged from a line of traffic to make a U-turn and not from a side road.[ original research? ]

Case

The plaintiff was riding a motorbike along a road and came across a stationary line of traffic consisting of vehicles two abrest. The plaintiff proceeded along the offside overtaking the stationary vehicles. The defendant came out of a side road in a car through a gap in the traffic intending to turn right in the opposite direction to the traffic and the plaintiff's travel. The defendant was signalled by the driver of a milk-tanker to proceed and as the defendant inched out he was hit by the plaintiff.

Judgement

The judge ruled that both parties were to blame but attributed 80% of the blame to the plaintiff.

Significance

The case is often quoted as an proving example of the liability incurred by motorcyclists when 'making a lane' and proceeding alongside traffic. As this is an operation fraught with potential hazards anyone undertaking it incurs liability for anything which may happen irrespective of whether they have right-of-way.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Traffic</span> Phenomenon of movement by humans on foot or using vehicles

Traffic comprises pedestrians, vehicles, ridden or herded animals, trains, and other conveyances that use public ways (roads) for travel and transportation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersection (road)</span> Road junction where two or more roads either meet or cross at grade

An intersection or an at-grade junction is a junction where two or more roads converge, diverge, meet or cross at the same height, as opposed to an interchange, which uses bridges or tunnels to separate different roads. Major intersections are often delineated by gores and may be classified by road segments, traffic controls and lane design.

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

Vehicle insurance is insurance for cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other road vehicles. Its primary use is to provide financial protection against physical damage or bodily injury resulting from traffic collisions and against liability that could also arise from incidents in a vehicle. Vehicle insurance may additionally offer financial protection against theft of the vehicle, and against damage to the vehicle sustained from events other than traffic collisions, such as keying, weather or natural disasters, and damage sustained by colliding with stationary objects. The specific terms of vehicle insurance vary with legal regulations in each region.

Liability insurance is a part of the general insurance system of risk financing to protect the purchaser from the risks of liabilities imposed by lawsuits and similar claims and protects the insured if the purchaser is sued for claims that come within the coverage of the insurance policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span>

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to his or her body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

<i>Li v. Yellow Cab Co.</i> 1975 California Supreme Court decision

Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), commonly referred to simply as Li, is a California Supreme Court case that judicially embraced comparative negligence in California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

A car rental, hire car or car hire agency is a company that rents automobiles for short periods of time to the public, generally ranging from a few hours to a few weeks. It is often organized with numerous local branches, and primarily located near airports or busy city areas and often complemented by a website allowing online reservations.

The family purpose doctrine is "a court-created legal fiction that employs agency principles to impose vicarious liability on a head of the household for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a family member." In a typical case involving the doctrine, the so-called "head of the household" has given their family members permission to drive their car "for their general use, pleasure, and convenience," i.e., a "family purpose." Furthermore, plaintiffs in most American courts that follow the doctrine can prove the car was being used for a family purpose "merely by showing that it was being used by a family member with the defendant's consent." The underlying theory of the doctrine is that "the driver of a family car, in pursuit of recreation or pleasure, is engaged in the owner's business and is viewed as either the agent or servant of the owner." In some instances, the doctrine may apply to more than just traditional cars, such as motorbikes, trucks, and motor boats. Moreover, a plaintiff's family purpose doctrine claim does not necessarily fail if "the defendant has provided a separate vehicle for each licensed driver in the family, so that each family member ordinarily operates his or her own vehicle."

<i>Martin v. Herzog</i>

Martin v. Herzog, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920), was a New York Court of Appeals case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">All-way stop</span> Road intersection with stop signs on all approaches

An all-way stop – also known as a four-way stop – is a traffic management system which requires vehicles on all the approaches to a road intersection to stop at the intersection before proceeding through it. Designed for use at low traffic-volume locations, the arrangement is common in the United States, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, and Liberia, as well as in a number of, usually rural, locations in Australia where visibility on the junction approaches is particularly poor. The stop signs at such intersections may be supplemented with additional plates stating the number of approaches.

<i>Nettleship v Weston</i> English legal case about negligence

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 is an English Court of Appeal judgment dealing with the breach of duty in negligence claims. In this case the court had considered the question of the standard of care that should be applied to a learner driver, and whether it should be the same as is expected of an experienced driver.

Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law (2006) is a legal text, which marked the first of Cambridge University Press's "Law in Context" series. It was originally authored by English legal scholar, Patrick Atiyah in 1970 and has been taken over by Professor Peter Cane since the 4th edition in 1987. The thrust of the book is that the law of tort should be abolished, especially as relates to the law on personal injuries, and should be replaced with a no fault state compensation system. Its arguments are in tune with the establishment in the 1970s of such a system in New Zealand, with the Accident Compensation Commission.

Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. To date, it is the most persuasive decision of the most persuasive state supreme court in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century: Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision in the period from 1940 to 2005. It was also favorably cited by the House of Lords in an important case on nervous shock, McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983].

<i>Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd</i>

Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd[1956] UKHL 6 is an important English tort law, contract law and labour law, which concerns vicarious liability and an ostensible duty of an employee to compensate the employer for torts he commits in the course of employment.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In legal terminology, the assured clear distance ahead (ACDA) is the distance ahead of any terrestrial locomotive device such as a land vehicle, typically an automobile, or watercraft, within which they should be able to bring the device to a halt. It is one of the most fundamental principles governing ordinary care and the duty of care for all methods of conveyance, and is frequently used to determine if a driver is in proper control and is a nearly universally implicit consideration in vehicular accident liability. The rule is a precautionary trivial burden required to avert the great probable gravity of precious life loss and momentous damage. Satisfying the ACDA rule is necessary but not sufficient to comply with the more generalized basic speed law, and accordingly, it may be used as both a layman's criterion and judicial test for courts to use in determining if a particular speed is negligent, but not to prove it is safe. As a spatial standard of care, it also serves as required explicit and fair notice of prohibited conduct so unsafe speed laws are not void for vagueness. The concept has transcended into accident reconstruction and engineering.

The Ballymacarrett rail crash occurred on 10 January 1945 at 7:50am in the Ballymacarrett area of Belfast, County Down, Northern Ireland on the Belfast to Bangor Line of the Belfast and County Down Railway, when a train led by a heavy autotrain driving trailer ran into the back of a stopped passenger train consisting of lightweight wooden coaches. 22 died with 27 injured. It was the worst crash in Northern Ireland since 1889. The cause was found to be carelessness of the driver of the autotrain who was running too fast for conditions. Fog, unsafe railway rules, and possible distraction from passengers all may have contributed to the accident. Old lightweight rolling stock contributed to the great number of injuries and deaths. The accident led to the demise of the railway which was nationalised three years later.

Increases in the use of autonomous car technologies are causing incremental shifts in the responsibility of driving, with the primary motivation of reducing the frequency of traffic collisions. Liability for incidents involving self-driving cars is a developing area of law and policy that will determine who is liable when a car causes physical damage to persons or property. As autonomous cars shift the responsibility of driving from humans to autonomous car technology, there is a need for existing liability laws to evolve in order to reasonably identify the appropriate remedies for damage and injury. As higher levels of autonomy are commercially introduced, the insurance industry stands to see higher proportions of commercial and product liability lines, while personal automobile insurance shrinks.

References

  1. Powell v Moody, Linder Myers Solicitors, 28 September 2011, archived from the original on 20 February 2016, retrieved 20 February 2016