This case established that, if the implications of imposing a duty in this situation would be too onerous, the courts will not impose a duty on the grounds of fair, just and reasonable no duty was imposed.

CASE SUMMARY

Claimant: Motorist

Defendant: Landowners

Facts: The claimant hit a cyclist when emerging from a road and blamed the incident on his view being blocked by vegetation on the adjacent land, against which he sought a claim.

Outcome: Not liable

Legal principle: As there was no existing precedent on this particular issue, in line with the guidance in Robinson (2018), reasonableness had to be consider in terms of imposing the duty. The implications of imposing a duty in this situation would be too onerous, the duty would affect any owner of premises planting vegetation on their land. Additionally, such a duty would likely create a large number of claims from insurance companies against landowners for contributions to insurance payments.