header-logo header-logo

02 December 2011 / Karen O’Sullivan
Issue: 7492 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Damages , LexisPSL , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Smash & bash at your peril

Karen O’Sullivan provides a crash course in the issues that arise around liability in road traffic litigation

Road traffic litigation is often looked down on by other litigators as being unchallenging when it comes to liability. The phrase “smash and bash” epitomises this perhaps intellectually snobbish view. There are no “six pack” regulations, for example, and causation is rarely a thorny issue. However, to the people involved in these sometimes horrific events the cases are certainly important. Not only are road accidents far more common than other types of accidents, they often cause the most serious injuries. They are therefore arguably the most important type of personal injury work, leading to the highest value claims.

Overruled?

Yet is it correct to take the view that RTA never has any interesting points of law on liability? The last few weeks have seen a clutch of reported cases, two of which are appeals suggesting that parties’ advisers are happy to assert that a judge has got a “simple” RTA

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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