case 15,2003 交通事故

Grealis v Opuni [2003] EWCA Civ 177 (28 January 2003)

交通事故—原告违规—被告超速—疏忽

英格兰及威尔士上诉法院

在KENNEDY大法官、MANTELL大法官、MANCE大法官之前

原告是送外买的，违规跨越隔离带，被告当时超速，双方撞在一起。另外一个情节是：the collision was between the front of the Seat and the rear wheel of the moped and that, most probably, the collision would have been avoided if the respondent had been travelling at a slower speed and certainly had he been within the prescribed speed limit. 如果被告不超速的话，碰撞本可避免。

英国法律的基调是：the various Road Traffic Acts are not intended to provide a remedy in civil law to a party injured by their non-observance. 也就是说，交通肇事中违规的受害方（自己不注意）不能获得民事救济。

初审法官Cooke坦率地说：

Regulation is one thing, negligence is another. The two may quite often coincide but not in every case. Mr Scott suggests to me these are all of course old cases, decided 40 years ago, at a time when views on speed were different, and I ought not to follow them. I cannot do that. There not only are two of them, but three of them are decisions of the High Court, binding upon me as a Judge of the County Court, and one is a decision of the Court of Appeal which states quite clearly a finding of principle. If the Court of Appeal in modern times thinks it is right to depart from that, it is of course entirely a matter for them, but it is not for me. I must follow what they say.

交通法规和疏忽是两码事。他拒绝给予原告救济。

在上诉法院，Mantell大法官同提初审法官的分析。这是一个简单的案子，在他看来，因为法律早有定论。他认为：It would also seem that he was not keeping a proper look-out. In my view he should bear 80 per cent of the blame for what happened.

判决：

Liability at 80 per cent against claimant and 20 per cent against defendant. 原告承担80%的责任，被告20%。