Watson v Thomas S. Whitney & Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE HARMAN
Judgment Date11 November 1965
Judgment citation (vLex)[1965] EWCA Civ J1111-2
CourtCourt of Appeal
Date11 November 1965

[1965] EWCA Civ J1111-2

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

(From Mr. Registrar Cocks — Liverpool Court of Passage)

Before:

Lord Justice Sellrrs

Lord Justice Harman and

Lord Justice Diplock

Norman Watson
and
Thomas S. Whitney & Company Limited
and
Joseph Faustino Bilbao

Mr. DONALD FORSTR (instructed by Messrs. Gibson & Weldon, Agents for Messrs. a. Leslie, Black, Lester Davidson & Co., Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).

Mr. RICHARD BROCK (instructed by Messrs. De Cordova & De Cordova, Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).

1

LORD JUSTICE SELLERS: This I think without question is the most trivial case which has come in my experience before the Court of Appeal.

2

There was some question as to whether we had jurisdiction because of the rather ancient Rules of the Court of passage. It may well be that we have but I was satisfied that it was desirable that this Court should hear this matter rather than that further costs should be incurred in dealing with it in any other way.

3

The matter came into the Court of Passage at Liverpool but was referred, by consent and by an order, to the Registrar of that Court and having heard the claim which the plaintiff brought he gave judgment against him. The defendants appeal on the ground of liability and also on the ground of damages.

4

Taking liability first, with great respect I think that the Registrar was wrong. The plaintiff was walking along Aigburth Road, Liverpool, just after midnight, on the 2nd February, 1964. He was on the outside of the pavement towards the road. He had his wife (who was pushing a perambulator) somewhere behind him and she was walking along at about the same place. It was dark at that time. The plaintiff was carrying a shopping bag in each hand, which meant that he had one on the off side or the road side. Whilst he was there the defendant, driving a motor van which he had borrowed, swung it round from the middle of the road and came up towards the kerb in such a position that the door handle of his vehicle caught the coat of the plaintiff somewhere on the sleeve. It seems also that it penetrated far enough into his clothing to make a bruise on the arm above the elbow, at the site where the tear had taken place. There was a small claim for damages for repairing the coat. It was apparently a new coat. It was possible to repair it by invisible mending. It has not actually been done but there is a small claim for that which was put by two witnesses at There was also a small claim for damage to the bag and a small claim forpersonal injury.

5

The Registrar took what to my mind is a surprising view and one which I find untenable, namely, that the blame here should be put wholly upon the plaintiff — that he was to blame because he was walking so close to the edge of the pavement. As I have said, I think that is an erroneous view. The pavement should give security to those who use it from vehicles using the road. I should have held that there was clear liability in this case where a vehicle overlapped the footpath. It is said that there was some negligence on the part of the plaintiff in walking so close in. I think there was no evidence of contributory negligence. The plaintiff had no reason to think that this vehicle, coming round like that, was going to come so close that it would overlap the pavement and do this damage to him, even if he had occasion, which I doubt, to observe what the vehicle was doing at all; it came suddenly from the middle of the road to the pavement.

6

The driver said "I did not notice anyone on the foot walk". There was abundant evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant driver and I think none on the part of the plaintiff. The Registrar said that he found the wife's evidence "exaggerated and unreliable". It could only I think be exaggerated if at all in reference to the damages. She said that the cost of the repair would be £8.

7

When, having given judgment for the defendants, the Registrar heard that there as £10 in court, he said the damages would not have exceeded £10 in any case. That was hardly what one might call an assessment of the damage; it was only an observation that the damages would not have been more than £10.

8

In the view I have formed of this case, in the light of the view that the Registrar took of the evidence, saying that the wife's evidence was "unreliable", £10 was a fail-sum for such damages as accrued that night to the plaintiff and I would be prepared to enter judgment for £10 as being the appropriate sum of damages, for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Nettleship v Weston
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 June 1971
    ...no errors of judgment, has good eyesight and hearing, and is free from any infirmity: see Richley v. Farrell (1965) 1 W. L. R. 1454: Watson v. Whitney (1966) 1 W. L. R. 57. 12 The high standard thus imposed by the Judges is, I believe, largely the result of the policy of the Road Traffic Ac......
  • Imbree v McNeilly; McNeilly v Imbree
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 28 August 2008
    ...Muir [1943] AC 448 . 21 Richley (Henderson) v Faull. Richley Third Party [1965] 1 WLR 1454 ; [1965] 3 All ER 109. 22 Watson v Thomas S Whitney & Co Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 57 ; [1966] 1 All ER 23 Watson v Thomas S Whitney & Co Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 57 at 60; [1966] 1 All ER 122 at 124. 24......
  • M.M. v. R.F. et al., (1997) 101 B.C.A.C. 97 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • 19 September 1997
    ...see Richley (Henderson) v. Faull. Richley, Third Party , [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1454 and Watson v. Thomas S. Whitney & Co. Ltd. , [1966] 1 W.L.R. 57. "The high standard thus imposed by the judges is, I believe, largely the result of the policy of the Road Traffic Acts. Parliament requires ever......
  • Robert Brown v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1980] PNGLR 409
    • Papua New Guinea
    • National Court
    • 3 November 1980
    ...free from any infirmity: see Richley (Henderson) v Faull. Richley, Third Party [1965] 1 WLR 1454 and Watson v Thomas S Whitney & Co Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 57. By way of analogy, this objective standard of care also exists in the criminal law. In R v Evans [1963] 1 QB 412 at 418 the Court of Crimi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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