Stoddart v Perucca

In apportioning contributory negligence, the court must assess both blameworthiness and the relative causative potency of the things involved. A motor vehicle’s potentially dangerous nature may require a substantial adjustment, even where the driver was not reckless and the claimant was more blameworthy. The capacity of a horse to cause injury may also be considered. An appellate court should not interfere with the resulting allocation unless the conclusion was plainly wrong or unavailable on the evidence.

A 14-year-old experienced horse rider was injured when her horse collided with a campervan as she emerged from a bridleway onto a derestricted road. The trial judge found that the rider had failed to stop and look, while the driver had failed to anticipate a second horse and had accelerated after the first horse crossed.

Liability was not challenged on appeal. Permission was limited to apportionment. The trial judge assessed contributory negligence at 50 per cent. The central issue was whether that allocation was unsustainable on the findings.

Lord Justice Sedley gave the judgment of the court. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Lord Justice Hooper agreed. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Apportionment. The court must appraise both the parties’ blameworthiness and the causative effect of their conduct. Those matters form the basis of the apportionment exercise, which is an overall evaluation rather than a mechanical calculation.
2. Relative causative potency. The court must adjust the assessment of blameworthiness to reflect the relative causative potency of the instrumentalities involved. A motor vehicle is potentially a dangerous or lethal instrument, so the driver’s conduct must be assessed with that in mind. The fact that the claimant was riding a horse rather than walking did not remove the relevance of the motor vehicle’s potency. The horse’s own capacity to cause injury could also be considered.
3. Application. Although the claimant was more blameworthy because she crossed without stopping and looking, the driver had made a significant error of judgment by failing to slow materially after seeing the first horse. The trial judge was entitled to take that error and the relative potency of the vehicles into account.
4. Appellate review. An appellate court should not interfere with an apportionment where the trial judge made no error of law or approach and the conclusion was open on the evidence. The 50 per cent allocation was not plainly wrong and was therefore upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 1 March 2011, the court dismissed the appeal. Permission had been limited to apportionment, and the liability finding was not open to challenge.
• Newcastle County Court (Burnett J): The judge found the driver in breach of duty and assessed the rider’s contributory negligence at 50 per cent. No citation for the lower-court decision is stated in the judgment.