Miroslav Yordanov v Valentin Vasilev & Ors

Under Rome II, the law of the place where damage occurs is the default rule. Article 4(2) is a special exception which may apply separately to each claimant–defendant pairing in a multi-party accident. Article 4(3) is an exceptional escape clause requiring a clear preponderance of factors showing that the tort is manifestly more closely connected with another country. The court must assess the connection of the entire tort, including the place of the accident, applicable safety rules, medical treatment, parties’ connections and the vehicles involved. Habitual residence is fact-sensitive and requires permanence or regularity, assessed by the person’s centre of interests rather than intention alone. In a road accident, negligent drivers may be jointly and severally liable, with contribution apportioned on a just and equitable basis by reference to responsibility. Contributory negligence requires separate assessment of causative potency and blameworthiness.

The judgment determined preliminary issues arising from a fatal multi-vehicle accident in England. Two related claims were tried together: a claim by Miroslav Yordanov against the drivers, estates and insurers, and a claim by Vladimir Atanasov against the estate and insurer of the Volkswagen driver.

The issues included liability, the applicable law in the Yordanov claim, contribution between the drivers and insurers, and Atanasov’s contributory negligence. The principal choice-of-law dispute was whether Bulgarian or English law governed the claim against the Bulgarian driver and insurer.

1. Choice of law. Article 4(2) of Rome II may apply in a multi-party claim, but it is assessed separately for each claimant–defendant pairing. Yordanov and Atanasov were habitually resident in Bulgaria because their English accommodation and employment were temporary, whereas their Bulgarian residence, family connections and wider centre of interests had greater permanence and regularity.
2. Article 4(3) nevertheless displaced Article 4(2). The accident, damage, medical treatment, investigation and relevant road-safety rules were all closely connected with England. The claimant therefore established that the entire tort was manifestly more closely connected with England and that its centre of gravity lay there. English law governed the Yordanov claim.
3. Liability. Both Angelov and Atanasov drove negligently and dangerously. Each accelerated to about 80 mph, raced the other, failed to respond adequately to the approaching Nissan and had sufficient time to avoid the collision. They were jointly and severally liable for Yordanov’s injuries. Atanasov was liable to Atanasov in the second claim. The insurers were liable under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as declared in the judgment.
4. Contribution. Applying section 2(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, responsibility was divided equally between Angelov and Atanasov. Each had a substantial and avoidable role in causing the collision.
5. Contributory negligence. Atanasov’s damages were reduced by 20 per cent for failing to wear a seatbelt and by a further 50 per cent for his negligent driving, producing a total reduction of 70 per cent under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.