Paul Andrew Major V Peter Ernest Leonard Lamyman (2003)

There were no grounds for concluding that the trial judge was wrong in his conclusions that the claimant's injury was of a kind sustained in a fall in which he was not paying attention.

Negligence - Personal Injury

CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Brooke LJ, Latham LJ) 12/11/2003

LTL 12/11/2003 Extempore (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC9900573

Appeal by the defendant ('L') from the decision of Royce J dated 14 March 2003 allowing an appeal brought by the claimant ('M') against the dismissal of his claim for damages for personal injury. M worked for L as a tractor driver. He sustained an injury to his knee when he was attempting to climb down from the tractor's cab.

It was his case that the steps on the tractor did not have sufficient grip. By his defence L argued that M was not watching his feet and was therefore to blame. The trial judge accepted M's medical evidence that the fall caused the injury, however he dismissed the claim on the basis that he accepted the defence that M was not watching what he was doing. On M's appeal from that decision, the judge concluded that it was not clear from the trial judge's judgment why he rejected M's evidence as to how the accident occurred, and accordingly ordered a re-trial. This was L's appeal from that decision.

HELD: (1) The trial judge made it clear in his judgment why he could not accept M's account of how the accident occurred, and was driven to the conclusion that, from the evidence, the injury was of a kind sustained in a fall in which M was not paying attention. There were no grounds for concluding that the judge was wrong in those conclusions.

(2) Accordingly, the judge was wrong to have interfered with the trial judge's conclusions. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the trial judge's order restored.

Appeal allowed.

Paul Andrew Major V Peter Ernest Leonard Lamyman (2003)

There were no grounds for concluding that the trial judge was wrong in his conclusions that the claimant's injury was of a kind sustained in a fall in which he was not paying attention.

Negligence - Personal Injury

CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Brooke LJ, Latham LJ) 12/11/2003

LTL 12/11/2003 Extempore (Unreported elsewhere)

Document No.: AC9900573

Appeal by the defendant ('L') from the decision of Royce J dated 14 March 2003 allowing an appeal brought by the claimant ('M') against the dismissal of his claim for damages for personal injury. M worked for L as a tractor driver. He sustained an injury to his knee when he was attempting to climb down from the tractor's cab.

It was his case that the steps on the tractor did not have sufficient grip. By his defence L argued that M was not watching his feet and was therefore to blame. The trial judge accepted M's medical evidence that the fall caused the injury, however he dismissed the claim on the basis that he accepted the defence that M was not watching what he was doing. On M's appeal from that decision, the judge concluded that it was not clear from the trial judge's judgment why he rejected M's evidence as to how the accident occurred, and accordingly ordered a re-trial. This was L's appeal from that decision.

HELD: (1) The trial judge made it clear in his judgment why he could not accept M's account of how the accident occurred, and was driven to the conclusion that, from the evidence, the injury was of a kind sustained in a fall in which M was not paying attention. There were no grounds for concluding that the judge was wrong in those conclusions.

(2) Accordingly, the judge was wrong to have interfered with the trial judge's conclusions. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the trial judge's order restored.

Appeal allowed.