This site uses cookies.

Infant Pedestrians: Can You Blame the Parents? - Edward Cleary, DWF

14/03/19. Ellis v Kelly & Anor, High Court (QB), 31 July 2018 - The court declined to make a finding of contributory negligence against an 8 year old boy involved in a road traffic accident and dismissed the contribution claim against his mother. The claimant's momentary misjudgement had to be balanced against the reckless conduct of the defendant, and it would be undesirable to routinely attempt to regulate decisions and actions arising in the course of normal daily parenting. Edward Cleary reviews the judgment in the High Court case of Ellis v Kelly (2018).

Facts

The accident occurred on 20 September 2008 near to a zebra crossing on Gospel Lane in Birmingham, which was a quiet road with a children's playground on one side and a skateboard park on the other.

The claimant was 8 years and 8 months old. For that summer or perhaps a little before, he had been allowed to go out without adult supervision, but only if accompanied by his older cousins. His mother had told him to be careful, watch the road and stay with the others.

The accident occurred when the claimant had left the playground to find one of his cousins. He was seen to cross the road at the zebra crossing and then turn left towards the skateboard park. It was inferred that the claimant did not find his cousin at the skateboard park or the nearby shop and decided that he should return to the playground.

The claimant was struck by the defendant's car as he crossed the road and sustained a severe brain injury. Primary liability for the accident was admitted by the defendant's insurer and the defendant was not called to give evidence at trial.

Findings

Mrs Justice Yip made the following findings of fact in respect of the accident circumstances...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Entienou

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.