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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll