header-logo header-logo

20 September 2007
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

ROAD TRAFFIC

R v Myers and another [2007] EWCA Crim 599, [2007] All ER (D) 241 (Feb)

Three cars was travelling in convoy and were being driven dangerously. One car crashed because the driver attempted a handbrake turn; the driver was killed.

There was no contact between the three cars; the cause of the accident was the manner of the deceased’s driving. The other two drivers were charged with dangerous driving. They had not been given any warning notice under RTOA 1988, s 1(1). 

HELD The policy behind the exception in RTOA 1988, s 2(1) is that drivers who have committed a relevant road traffic offence and whose vehicles are involved in or concerned with an accident do not need the warning or notification prescribed by s 1 because the very fact of being involved or concerned with the accident is a sufficient indication of the risk of prosecution.

Section 2(1) requires both the commission of a road traffic offence and an accident occurring at the time of the offence, or immediately after it, owing to the presence on the road of a vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed. Although in many cases the offence would be the (or at least a) cause of the accident, s 2(1) does not so require.

Rather, it requires there to be a sufficient causal link between the offence and the accident that the driver does not need to be warned of the risk of prosecution. In this case, there was a sufficient causal link between the deceased’s accident and the presence on the road of the vehicles driven by the defendants, as the accident occurred owing to the presence on the road of all three dangerously driven vehicles.

Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll