Driver Found Not Negligent In RTA
10/21/2021
The recent case of Chan v Peters [2021] EWHC 2004 (QB) provides a sound illustration of the considerations made by the Court in RTA cases involving the issue of negligence.
Background to the decision
The Claimant, C, was 17 years old when he was hit by the Defendant, D whilst crossing the road outside his school. He suffered severe injuries, including sustaining a traumatic brain injury, a fractured skull, left traumatic optic neuropathy, muscle damage to his left knee, and lacerations to the face, left elbow, and right and left knee.
The questions before Mr Justice Cavanagh were:
a) Was the accident caused by D’s negligence?
b) Should damages be reduced due to C’s contributory negligence?
c) If so, by how much?
The Court’s reasoning
Mr Justice Cavanagh outlined the legal principles to be applied in these types of cases:
- “The Defendant will be liable in negligence if they fail to attain the standard of a reasonable careful driver and if the accident was caused as a result. The burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, rests with the Claimant.”
- The standard of care is that of the reasonably careful driver who understands and has experience of pedestrians and particularly the way child pedestrians behave - Moore v Pointer [1975] RTR.
- If a real risk of danger became apparent to such a driver then they must take reasonable precautions.
- If there is only a mere possibility of danger, the driver is not required to take extraordinary precautions - Foskett v Mistry [1984] 1 RTR 1.
- 20/20 hindsight and the standards of a perfect driver are not the correct standards by which to judge a motorist - Stewart v Glaze [2009] EWHC 704 (QB).
- A motor vehicle is a potentially deadly weapon – a fact that drivers must recognise when getting behind the wheel - Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801.
- It is assumed that drivers are familiar with the Highway Code.
- If the facts are uncertain, a judge should be wary of making precise findings - Lambert v Clayton [2009] EWCA Civ 237.
- The evidence of accident reconstruction experts must be carefully construed. They should not exceed their expertise nor elevate their admissible evidence about reaction times, stopping distances, and the like into a "fixed framework or formula, against which the defendant's actions are then to be rigidly judged with a mathematical precision" - Stewart v Glaze.
- The exercise of assessing whether or not the driver drove with the requisite standard of care must be done by considering all the circumstances of the collision and driving conditions - Sam v Atkins [2005] EWCA Civ 1452.
- When making a finding for contributory fault, Lord Reed said in Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5 at [28] that "the apportionment of responsibility is inevitably a somewhat rough and ready exercise."
- The Claimant’s age is irrelevant for the determination of the extent of contributory negligence.
It was established that D was travelling at 25 mph, below the recommended 30 mph speed limit. A witness who was travelling behind her vehicle confirmed that before stepping out onto the road, C did not look to his right at any time. The witnessed stated that he believed C was responsible for the collision.
After examining the expert evidence relating to the technical elements of the collision, Mr Justice Cavanagh concluded that D had not been negligent. He stated:
“The Defendant did not fail to see the Claimant when he was there to be seen. As I have found, the Claimant was entirely, or virtually entirely, obscured by the Zafira from the point at which the locus came into sight until 0.6 seconds before the accident. In those circumstances, a reasonably competent driver could not be expected to see the Claimant until 0.6 seconds before the collision, and, therefore, could not be expected to take any precautionary steps”.
The Judge went on to conclude that D had “acted in the manner of a reasonably competent driver in the way that she reacted once she perceived that the Claimant was jogging into the road.”
Because there was found to be no negligence on D’s part, the question of contributory negligence did not arise.
Comment
Hitting a child and causing life-changing injuries as a result is every driver’s worst fear. This decision provides an excellent summary of how a Court will consider the applicable law, witness statements, and expert evidence when ruling on liability. You can read the full decision here .
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of these court updates, these articles are intended as a general overview and not intended, and should not be used, as a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. Neither Zurich Municipal, nor any member of the Zurich group of companies, will accept any responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of these articles
