Hunt v Watkins & - 40740/02; Watkins v GRE (UK) Ltd & Ors - 40696/02

The case involved two appeals heard together, *Hunt v Watkins & Ors* and *Watkins v GRE (UK) Ltd & Ors*. The dispute concerned claims arising from an accident involving a dodgem car. In the first appeal, the claimant sought to establish negligence on the part of the dodgem car operator, while in the second, a son was claiming benefits under his father's insurance policy. Both matters were before the court on appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the operator of the dodgem car had been negligent, leading to the accident. This involved determining whether the conditions on the rink, specifically the presence of water, caused the dodgem car to aquaplane and become uncontrollable. The court also considered whether the evidence presented sufficiently established the operator's negligence and the causal link between any such negligence and the claimant's injuries.

The court's reasoning focused on the evidence relating to the depth of water on the rink and the appellant's account of the dodgem car aquaplaning. It was found that the initial determination had overlooked the overall evidence, including the existence of a puddle and the variation in wetness across the floor. The court concluded that the respondent's evidence of the car sliding uncontrollably was consistent with aquaplaning, and that the initial finding that the appellant's observations were unacceptable was flawed. The court applied the principle that if the appellant's evidence of the car behaving differently in the puddle was accepted, the alternative inference of inadvertent driving could not be drawn. The court found that the expert evidence indicated that a film of water would render the car unsteerable and unresponsive to the accelerator, supporting the appellant's account.

The court allowed the appeal, finding errors in the original judgment, inconsistent findings, and conclusions that could not stand. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient to make its own determination and found a verdict for the appellant, ordering that the appeal be allowed with costs.