Michael Ashton v Eurolife FFH Societe Anonyme General Insurance

Under Greek law, liability for a road accident requires unlawful conduct, fault or negligence, damage and causation. Parking is lawful where it creates no danger or obstruction to traffic, assessed by reference to the road as a whole, and where no prohibition applies. A provision requiring warning devices when parking is prohibited does not apply where parking is permitted. Breach of the Greek Traffic Code does not itself establish liability unless causation is also proved. Causation is assessed by the theory of adequate cause, applying ordinary experience and objective foreseeability. Findings of foreign law are findings of fact for the English court, informed by qualified expert evidence. Greek first-instance and Supreme Court decisions provide guidance rather than binding precedent.

The claimant suffered catastrophic spinal injuries when his bicycle collided with the rear of a car parked on a rural road in Greece. The defendant insured the car’s Greek owner and driver. The claimant alleged breaches of the Greek Traffic Code and a general duty of care. The defendant denied negligence and alleged that the collision was caused by the claimant’s failure to keep a proper lookout.

Liability was tried as a preliminary issue. The court had to determine the applicable law, the construction and application of the relevant Greek Civil Code and Traffic Code provisions, whether the parking was unlawful or negligent, and whether any breach caused the collision.

1. Applicable law. The claim was characterised as non-contractual for choice-of-law purposes. Greek law governed substantive liability, while English law governed procedure, evidence and the standard of proof. The burden of proving foreign law lay on the party asserting it, and the court had to determine the issue as a Greek court would, by reference to the highest relevant foreign court.
2. Greek liability principles. Article 914 of the Greek Civil Code required proof of unlawfulness, fault or negligence, an act or omission, damage and causation. Articles 12 and 34 of the Greek Traffic Code supplied the relevant road-user and parking obligations. Whether a vehicle was a danger or obstruction was a question of fact assessed by reference to the road as a whole.
3. Construction and application. The Opel was parked close to the verge, leaving approximately 3.3 to 3.4 metres for traffic to pass. It was visible from at least 120 metres and there were no prohibitory signs or markings. Parking therefore did not pose a danger or obstruction under article 34(1), and articles 34(2)(h), 34(4) and 34(9) were not engaged. Article 12(1) was likewise not breached, so article 12(4) did not apply.
4. Causation. Even if there had been a breach, the claimant failed to establish causation. Applying adequate cause and common experience, the collision resulted from his failure to keep a sufficient lookout while cycling at speed. The car would have been apparent irrespective of hazard lights, a warning triangle or sunglasses.
5. Disposition. The defendant was not liable. The claimant’s claim failed.

First-instance judgment. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.