PHRASES TO USE:

1. FORESEEABILITY/REMOTENESS: Foreseeability/Remoteness: Further or

alternatively, the losses alleged by the Claimants were not reasonably foreseeable
and/or not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering into the
Agreement and so are too remote to be recoverable by the Claimants
2. ‘further or alternatively’- the fire was caused or contributed to by the Claimant’s own
negligence.
3. State particulars assertively: For omissions and things that the defendant did not do,
use phrases such as: “failed to……”; “omitted to…….”; “did not use sufficient…..”.
For things that a defendant has done that they should not have done, use phrases such
as: “caused or permitted….”
4. Common particulars for road accident negligence
 failed to pay attention to the road conditions in front of her; attempted to find a
compact disc whilst driving;
 attempted to insert a compact disc into the xxCar’s stereo system whilst driving;
did not use sufficient caution when the traffic lights on the road were not
functioning;
 failed to take heed of the presence of the Blue Car in the lane ahead of her;
 failed to keep any or any adequate lookout; failed to stop, steer, manage or
control her vehicle in such a way as to avoid a collision;
 failed to apply the brakes of the Vauxhall Car sufficiently, in time, or at all;
 drove into the Blue Car when, by the exercise of reasonable driving skill and care,
such a collision could have been avoided;
 drove too fast on xxx Road when the traffic lights were not functioning;
 drove whilst speaking on a mobile telephone when he knew or ought to have
known this was not safe;
 changed lane too late in the circumstances;
 in the circumstances, failed to drive in a safe and proper manner.
 Adducing evidence of another’s conviction: Further, the Claimant intends to
adduce evidence at trial under the Civil Evidence Act 1968, section 11, that the
Third Defendant was convicted at Greenwich Magistrates’ Court on 10th August
2018 of driving without due care and attention [contrary to the Road Traffic Act
1988, section 3] in respect of his driving which caused the Second Collision,
which is relevant to the issue of whether the Third Defendant was negligent.
 REQUIRING PROOF = ‘except that it is admitted that … and the C is required to
prove that …., para 3 is denied”