Missed Flight

[rdv]

Missed flight last Thursday due to overturned John Lewis lorry on M1.
Cost over £100 for flight change. Can I claim from JL.

[grasscarp]

No.

[EDDIE51]

No, why even ask?

[rdv]

Where there's blame there's a claim

[factor-fiction]

Contact a firm of solicitors and see if they'll take it on. How do you know the JL lorry was at fault though?

[SlackAlice]

Try your Travel Insurance, under Flight Delays assuming you did have insurance.

[rdv]

Thanks, there was no other vehicle involved. Insurance claim would be the easiest route.

[ummmm]

Blimey. Are you for real?

[jno]

you might find it hard to prove JL actually ordered their lorry to turn over. Travel insurance is the more likely route to recompense.

[joggerjayne]

Elements required for a claim in Negligence ...

Duty, Breach, Damage

You owe a Duty to anyone who might suffer a loss as a result of your Negligence, or that of your employees.

If you are a road user,mother people who might suffer a loss are (obviously) other road users.

So John Lewis owe a duty, through their employee, to other road users, including rdv.

DUTY ESTABLISHED

Were they in breach of the Duty?

As there was no one else involved, it is reasonable to think that the JL driver was at fault.

If the driver drove in a negligent manner and crashed, then he was going to affect other road users, and so he was in Breach of his Duty.

BREACH ESTABLISHED

So who has suffered Damage?

Damage in this context means a foreseeable loss. If you block the road by turning over your lorry, what sort of loss is foreseeable? It is foreseeable that other road users will be delayed. It is foreseeable that if any road users have to be somewhere at a particular time, and that they lose money if they don't get there, then they will suffer a financial loss. So that financial loss, such as the cost of the air ticket, is a foreseeable loss.

DAMAGE ESTABLISHED

So rdv can clearly establish the required elements for a Negligence claim against the driver's employers, John Lewis.

I THINK JOHN LEWIS ARE LIABLE

Actually, I don't, but for more complicated reasons.

But I just wanted to show that it's not beyond the realms of possibility to think that they COULD be liable, so rdv's question is quite sensible, and it's perhaps a little unfair to give rdv a hard time.

[Canary42]

Presumably then the breakdown company could be sued for not clearing the obstruction sooner.

Where do you stop once embarking on speculative litigation ?

[joggerjayne]

I think the breakdown company are saved by

(1) the Remoteness Of Damage principle - they owe a duty to John Lewis, but not to everyone to whom John Lewis owed the primary duty

(2) their duty is, in any event, a contractual one, not a tortious one.