1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
Pavement Is 'Fun Security' for Pedestrians L AST week the Court
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
of Appeal held 1--# that if a person walking near the edge of the pavement was struck by the overhangine part of a vehicle, the pedestrian was not to blame. '[he pavement afforded full security.
Mr. Norman Watson of Liverpool was walking. just after midnight. 6 in. from the kerb, when a minibus, driven by Mr. Joseph F. Bilbao, also of Liverpool, and • owned by Thomas S. Whitney and Co Ltd., pulled up near the kerb, causing. injury to Watson and damage to his clothing. The vehicle's door handle had caught his coat.
In the Liverpool Court of Passage, the Registrar, Mr. Cocks, decided that Watson was to blame, dismissed his action without costs, and ordered thc repayment to the defendants of El() they had paid into court in offer of settlement.
Watson successfully challenged the dismissal of his action—and was awarded £10 damages. He was ordered to pay his costs from the date of the settlement.
The Registrar had found Watson to blame because he was walking too close to the edge of the pavement. " The pavement gives security to those who use. it from vehicles coming along the road ur overlapping the road ", said the Lord Justice.
The driver had said he did not 'notice anyone on the pavement. There was abundant evidence of negligence by the defendants, said the judge.. Lords Justices Harman and Diplock agreed.