Dickens v Bearman, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, October 02, 2003,  EWCA Crim 1397
|Issuing Organization:||Civil Division|
|Actores:||Dickens v Bearman|
|Resolution Date:||October 02, 2003|
SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVEB3/2003/0917 Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Crim 1397IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (Mr Justice Davis)Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Thursday, 2 October 2003B E F O R E: LORD JUSTICE MANTELL LORD JUSTICE CLARKE MR JUSTICE RIMER - - - - - - - DICKENS (By his mother and litigation friend Mrs Dickens)Claimant/Appellant-v- BEARMANDefendant/Respondent - - - - - - -(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofSmith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - -MR EVAN ASHFIELD (instructed by Easthams of Croydon) appeared on behalf of the AppellantMR OLIVER TICCIATI (instructed by Badhams of London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T 1. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: This is an appeal against Mr Justice Davis' apportionment of responsibility in a running down action heard in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, sitting in London on 7 and 8 April 2003. The action was unusual in that the only evidence with regard to liability, which is the only issue with which this court is concerned, was provided by film taken by CCTV camera. There was no evidence at all from what may be termed live witnesses. So far as the claimant was concerned, that is not surprising. As a consequence of this accident he suffered a fractured skull and brain damage which has left him unable to remember any of the circumstances which immediately preceded the accident itself. So far as the defendant - the driver of the vehicle, about which more later - and the several passengers as there were in that vehicle were concerned, it seems that neither the defendant himself nor the passengers were prepared to attend for the hearing. There was no application for an adjournment, and although their witness statements had been exchanged at an earlier date they were not admitted in evidence with the consequence that all the judge had to rely upon was the film itself. 2. In those circumstances it is acknowledged that this court, having seen the video several times, is as well placed as the judge to form a view on the facts and, indeed, if the members of the court thought it right, to differ from the judge in the conclusions that he reached. For my part, I would hold that the judge, fairly and accurately, recorded the evidence which we have seen...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL