Young v Ministry of Defence

In a personal injury claim based on an alleged mechanical defect, proving that a defect existed does not establish that it caused the accident. The claimant must prove causation on the balance of probabilities by showing that the defect caused or materially contributed to the injury. The court may consider the vehicle’s actual performance, the driver’s evidence, expert evidence and whether the alleged problem would have manifested itself during the journey. On appeal, the court reviews whether the trial judge’s conclusion was open on the evidence and does not re-try the facts.

The appellant, a soldier, was seriously injured when an armoured fighting vehicle he was driving in Bosnia failed to negotiate a bend and crashed. He alleged that excessive free play in a steering tiller and defective brake drums caused or contributed to the accident.

On 10 September 2002, His Honour Judge Briggs sitting in the Middlesbrough County Court dismissed the claim. He found that the defects had not played a significant part and that the more likely explanation was driver error. The appellant appealed, arguing that the established defects required the court to infer causation. The central issue was whether the judge was entitled to reject mechanical defect as the cause of the accident.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with the judgment of Kay LJ. There was no proper basis for interfering with the trial judge’s conclusions.
2. The appellate court was reviewing, rather than rehearing, the evidence. It was therefore concerned with whether the judge could properly reach his conclusions on the evidence before him. The judge was entitled to assess the competing factual and expert evidence and to draw conclusions about causation.
3. The finding that the steering tiller was out of adjustment did not establish causation. The appellant accepted that excessive free play would not make the vehicle materially more difficult to drive if the driver took up the free play in the normal manner. He also accepted that he would have stopped had he experienced difficulty. The judge was entitled to conclude that the defect played no significant part.
4. The judge was likewise entitled to reject the alleged brake-drum defect as the cause of the accident. Although the drums were found to be scored and pitted, the evidence did not show that the condition created a significant problem for the driver. The vehicle had travelled several kilometres and negotiated numerous bends before the accident, giving any substantial braking problem an opportunity to manifest itself.
5. Once the alleged defects were not shown to have caused or materially contributed to the accident, driver error remained a real possibility, even though the appellant was experienced and was not operating under pressure. Applying the balance of probabilities, the judge was entitled to find that the appellant had failed to establish his claim.

There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the dismissal of the claim by His Honour Judge Briggs sitting in the Middlesbrough County Court on 10 September 2002. Appeal dismissed; no order for costs.