Davison v Leggett

Honest John Back Room » Legal matters
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Thu 14 Feb 2019 09:10
Davison v Leggett - canarydan

Has anyone come across this piece of a case law in relation to an RTA? The only details Google provides is an article on this website from nearly 10 years ago.

It basically ruled that where two overtaking vehicles collided then in the absence of any evidence that one party was committed to the overtake well before the other, it had to be a 50/50.

Was this a county court judgement, what year?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 14 Feb 2019 10:23
Davison v Leggett - Bromptonaut

I cannot find it in the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. This suggests it probably was a County Court Judgement but, OTOH, if it's oft quoted it may be High Court or even Court of Appeal. Unless it's Court of Appeal it's merely persuasive on similar facts

Lucy BC who's post Google links you to was for a while a 'Legal Beagle' on this site. I don't know if she was a Solicitor or Legal Exec but as an unqualified long term observer of legal issues I found some of her advice questionable. She was also rather prickly when challenged. I think what she's written is probably a cut/paste or re-hash of this site:

www.yourinsuranceclaim.co.uk/tag/challoner-vs-will.../

or

www.lovemoney.com/news/1062/win-your-road-accident...m

A traffic solicitor might be willing to give you an assessment of your chances (assuming you've been in a similar accident) as part of a free introductory talk. Alternatively your local Citizens Advice may have a pro-bono service where a local solicitor or supervised law students provide short advice sessions.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 14 Feb 2019 11:16
Davison v Leggett - Avant

"There was no evidence to indicate who began overtaking first. It’s possible neither party was negligent." (same thing on both the above sites)

Even more possible, surely, that both parties were negligent. If they collided head-on, it can't have been safe for either of them to overtake.

I'm sure an insurer would go 50/50, as they often try to do that even when one party is more to blame than the other.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 14 Feb 2019 12:14
Davison v Leggett - Brit_in_Germany

This will be the case:

Davison v Leggett (1969) 133 JP 552

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 14 Feb 2019 12:47
Davison v Leggett - canarydan

Cheers guys.

Fortunately not me involved, I work in the claims sector and had it quoted to me but had never heard of it nor could I find any decent information. Wanted to make sure it was legit!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 14 Feb 2019 14:17
Davison v Leggett - Bromptonaut

Cheers guys.

Fortunately not me involved, I work in the claims sector and had it quoted to me but had never heard of it nor could I find any decent information. Wanted to make sure it was legit!

As a former court officer (ie MoJ staff) I thought I knew all the abbreviations for case reports but don't remember JP. Turns out it's a publication called Justice of the Peace. Quotation suggests it was reported in 1969 at volume 133 p.152.

www.lexisnexis.co.uk/en-uk/products/justice-of-the...e

A good reference library might have the volume or no doubt it's available at a cost from publisher.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link