Kristopher Hicks (A protected party by his mother and litigation friend Gillian Hicks) v Michael Young

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr. Justice Edis
Judgment Date24 April 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] EWHC 1144 (QB)
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date24 April 2015
Docket NumberCase No: HQ13X06123

[2015] EWHC 1144 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr. Justice Edis

Case No: HQ13X06123

Between:
Kristopher Hicks (A protected party by his mother and litigation friend Gillian Hicks)
Claimant
and
Michael Young
Defendant

Stephen Killalea QC and Robert Hunter (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP) for the Claimant

Richard Lynagh QC and Suzanne Chalmers (instructed by Weightmans) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 23 rd March 2015

Mr. Justice Edis
1

This litigation arises out of a tragic incident which occurred at around 11:00pm on 2 nd November 2010. The claimant, who was then 23 years old, sustained a very severe brain injury when he fell from a moving taxi and hit the road surface. His injuries are such that he was unable to give evidence at the trial before me about the circumstances which led to him falling on to the surface of the road, and has never been able to speak about it to anyone. I am trying the issue of liability.

The Facts

2

The Claimant brings this claim in negligence and also alleges the tort of false imprisonment. A brief review of the agreed facts will show how that comes about. The Claimant hired the Defendant's taxi at the Abbey taxi rank in the centre of Bath shortly before 11.00pm. He was with his then girlfriend Abigail Noad. They asked the Defendant to drive them to his home address at 100 Queens Drive and the Defendant did so. At that time, the Claimant lived there with his father and other members of the family and Ms. Noad lived there most of the time as well. On the way, they stopped twice. First, very soon after they hired the cab, they got out and went into a pizza takeaway shop. They came out without a pizza, but it appears that they had ordered one which was to be delivered to their home. Then they asked the driver to stop so that Ms. Noad could get out of the car and buy cigarettes. This was about half way through the journey. When they reached the home address, Ms. Noad got out first. As the Claimant was moving to stand up to alight from the taxi the Defendant drove off, with the taxi door open, back towards the taxi rank which was the original starting point of the journey. Despite the Claimant's protestations the Defendant continued to drive on. In his Skeleton Opening for the Trial Mr. Killalea QC, who appears for the Claimant, said that "the Claimant decided to get out of the taxi before it had arrived at the Defendant's intended destination and in doing so sustained serious brain injuries". Mr. Lynagh QC, who appears for the Defendant, put it more plainly. He alleged that the Claimant "jumped" from the taxi. The point at which the Claimant did this was about 3/4 of a mile from the home address and the taxi was travelling over 20mph at the time. The Abbey rank, to which he was being returned, was a couple of miles away. It is also agreed that the Claimant was not drunk, although he may have been affected by alcohol. The Landlord of the Rifleman's Arms was called on his behalf to say that this was so. The Defendant does not say that the Claimant was drunk, although in interview he did say that he was unsteady on his feet. His counsel makes the submission that the relatively sober state of the Claimant is a point favouring the Defendant. It might be negligent to drive off with a captive drunk in the back of the taxi because he might be expected to do something dangerous. A sober man would be far less likely to try to get out of the taxi in a dangerous way, and this may affect the issue of negligence. For whatever reason, it is common ground now that the Claimant was not heavily under the influence of alcohol.

3

The reason why it is agreed that the Claimant deliberately left the taxi despite the fact that the Claimant himself cannot explain his conduct, is that it is quite clear on the evidence that this is what happened. The scene of the accident was examined by PC Hignett, of the Avon & Somerset Police Collision Investigation Unit. His report is admissible as agreed opinion evidence further to an order of Master Eastman dated 27 June 2014. He described the position of coins and blood marks left on the carriageway as a result of the Claimant's exit from the vehicle. These show that the Claimant landed on the opposite side of the carriageway to the side upon which the taxi was driving, about 1.4 metres out from the offside of the taxi. In PC Hignett's opinion, this distance "would be typical of a person making a conscious effort to leave a vehicle as opposed to simply falling out". PC Hignett's opinion is that the taxi was travelling at a speed less than 30 mph when the Claimant left the vehicle, and that the Claimant was probably travelling at 20–24 mph as he struck the road surface.

4

This, therefore confirms the evidence of the Defendant who says that after he drove off with the Claimant in the back of his taxi, he had sat down again on the seat. He says also that the movement of the taxi in starting off had caused the door to close. This was because he was parked on a speed bump and there was a jolt as the car began to move which caused the door to close. It was not, however, locked. Although the taxi has a locking system which prevents passengers leaving the taxi, the Defendant had not tried to apply it. This was because he had got out of the habit of using it because it only worked intermittently. It was not his taxi and he did not think it was his job to spend money on repairing it. Therefore, the Claimant was safely in the back of the taxi until he deliberately chose to leave it.

5

The reason why the Defendant behaved as he did was that he had formed the view that the Claimant and Ms. Noad were not going to pay the fare but were planning to "do a runner". It was not seriously disputed that this is what he thought, but the Claimant's case is that he was wrong to come to that conclusion. It is important for a variety of reasons that I should review the evidence on this issue and reach a conclusion. There are only two sources of direct evidence about this: the Defendant and Abigail Noad. Ms. Noad has ended her relationship with the Claimant and is now thought to be living in Bath with a new partner and a baby. I am told that she has refused to co-operate with the Claimant's lawyers and she did not give evidence. She did make witness statements to the police and these are in the Trial Bundle and a Hearsay Notice has been served. The first of these is dated 3 rd November 2010, and the second the 7 th December 2010. In her first statement she says that after the stop for cigarettes she remembered Kris saying to the driver "It's OK mate. It's not like we're not going to pay you or nothing, and we're not going to do a runner." The Defendant agrees that something about doing a runner was said by one or other of his passengers. He says it is quite a common joke. This is one of the things that made him think that this was what was going to happen when the Claimant stood up to leave after Ms. Noad had left first. This element of common ground is some encouragement to lend some weight to her written evidence, even though it has not been given on oath and there has been no cross-examination about it. Another aspect of her first statement is less reassuring. In it she says this

"I got out of the taxi. I had a £20 note in my pocket and it was my intention to use that to pay the driver. I hadn't told the driver that I was going to pay the fare, but he looked at me out of his window and could see that I was now holding the £20 note aloft and in his direction."

She then went on to describe how she saw the Defendant shut the rear door and drive off.

6

If that passage were true, it is very hard to see why the Defendant did not simply take his fare from the £20 note. She altered this account in her second statement when she said that she had in fact taken out the £20 inside the taxi. She said that the door was then closed and that she waved the £20 note up to the window after that, which is when the driver looked straight at her.

7

The Defendant denies that he ever saw Ms. Noad with any money. He says that she got out and disappeared from his sight, which made him very suspicious because he thought that this was consistent with the passengers planning to do a runner. On this issue I prefer the evidence of the Defendant. This is not only because it was given from the witness box, and subject to cross-examination, but also because it is inherently far more probable. This means that there was no overt offer of payment, and this added to his concern that he was not going to be paid. In fact, she did not do a runner. Mr. Gunthorpe, the Claimant's father, gave evidence that after the taxi had driven off with the Claimant on board she banged on the door and he looked out of the window and saw her. He came down and opened the door to let her in. Mr. Gunthorpe said that by the time he saw her she had a pizza in her hand. This means that she must at some stage have encountered the pizza delivery vehicle. It is likely that this is why she left the taxi and was nowhere to be seen at the point when the Defendant decided that he was not going to be paid and took his retributive action.

8

There is no basis for concluding that the Claimant and Ms. Noad were actually planning to make off without payment. The Defendant's grounds for forming this belief were not strong and, although he did not know it at the time, it is now clear that the Claimant and Ms. Noad had given him their true address. The fact that both young people were intending to leave the taxi before any money changed hands was an important reason why he thought they were not going to pay him. The Defendant did accept that some people do get out of the vehicle before paying, although he thought that this was unusual in a purpose built taxi where the passenger can stand up to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Craig Sparrow v Arnaud Andre
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 6 April 2016
    ... ... he was making his statement for the litigation, he was asked by the Claimant's solicitors ... The rear of his car was also protected by a layer of foam behind the bumper area ... SC (HL) 20, 25 , per Lord Reid; Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 101 , per Lord Russell of ... a number of other authorities, including Hicks v Young [2015] EWHC 1144 ; Dalling v RJ Heale ... ...
  • R Ameth Diop v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 13 December 2018
    ... ... His victim was Ms Summerhill's mother. On October 14th 2014 the Claimant's two children ... longer term accommodation provided by third party contractors which may be shared and may be ... a response on March 22nd 2017 from the Litigation" Operations at the Home Office it was stated that \xE2" ... [2011] EWCA Civ 329 , [2012] QB 320 ; Hicks v Young [2015] EWHC 1144 at [37] ... ...
  • Mr Philip James Clay v TUI UK Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 May 2018
    ...rather than whether it was reasonably foreseeable that he would attempt to do so by crossing between the balconies: Hicks v Young [2015] EWHC 1144 (QB) per Edis J at [33]. (3) As set out by Morris LJ in Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 WLR 623at p630, it is: “…the most natural and reasonable ac......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT