![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Nottingham Tale
Apr. 5th, 2012 09:44 pmA great court case in QBE's Technical Claims Briefing today.
A police driver in Nottingham city centre had hit a 16-year-old girl while the driver was answering an emergency call late on a Saturday night. The girl, who witnesses said had been drinking, walked into the road and was struck at between 45 and 50 mph. She suffered head injuries and the claim against the police force's insurer was likely to be a high one.
The lower court said that the driver had been keeping a proper lookout, and so ascribed 75% contributory negligence to the victim.
The claimant appealed, and the Appeal Court noted that, although the police driver had been keeping a proper lookout, the correct procedure for police drivers answering emergency calls entailed taking account of road conditions and the distance to be travelled to reach the emergency.
The appeal court judge said that, since the policeman was driving late on a Saturday night in Nottingham city centre, the requirement to "take account of road conditions" included allowing for drunks walking into the middle of the road without warning, which, the judge said "was to be expected".
He reduced the victim's contributory negligence from 75% to 30% for this reason, which I reckon cost the insurers somewhere north of £400k.
PJ
Marvellous.
A police driver in Nottingham city centre had hit a 16-year-old girl while the driver was answering an emergency call late on a Saturday night. The girl, who witnesses said had been drinking, walked into the road and was struck at between 45 and 50 mph. She suffered head injuries and the claim against the police force's insurer was likely to be a high one.
The lower court said that the driver had been keeping a proper lookout, and so ascribed 75% contributory negligence to the victim.
The claimant appealed, and the Appeal Court noted that, although the police driver had been keeping a proper lookout, the correct procedure for police drivers answering emergency calls entailed taking account of road conditions and the distance to be travelled to reach the emergency.
The appeal court judge said that, since the policeman was driving late on a Saturday night in Nottingham city centre, the requirement to "take account of road conditions" included allowing for drunks walking into the middle of the road without warning, which, the judge said "was to be expected".
He reduced the victim's contributory negligence from 75% to 30% for this reason, which I reckon cost the insurers somewhere north of £400k.
PJ
Marvellous.
