Liability in road traffic accidents involving pedestrians

15 March 2024

It is worth noting at the outset the bus company was not involved or implicated in this claim.

This claim in Miah v Jones   [2024] EWHC 92 (KB) | 30 Jan 2024 was brought by a pedestrian who had suffered a significant head injury in addition to orthopaedic injuries as a result of a road traffic accident. The claimant was crossing the A487 to visit a restaurant after alighting from a bus which had stopped directly opposite the restaurant and was struck by a car travelling at approximately 60mph driven by the Defendant.  The accident happened whilst it was dark and in a rural area of Wales where there was only one building (the restaurant) with no streetlights around it.  It was alleged that the Defendant was negligent in that she was travelling too fast; failed to anticipate that the bus might have been dropping off passengers who may have wished to cross the road to the restaurant; that she should have braked; kept a proper look out; and used her main beam rather than dipped headlights.

It has been held that the Defendant did not fall below the standard of the reasonable prudent driver by failing to identify the presence of a stationary bus about 380 meters way. It has also been found that the distance along with the Claimant wearing dark clothing, the Defendant had no real opportunity to see him get off the bus. The Defendant also knew the route well as it was her route to and from work and therefore, she knew that there was no bus stop across from the restaurant and therefore, she was not negligent in failing to assume that the bus had recently dropped off a passenger opposite the restaurant. Even if the Judge had found that the Defendant had noticed a stationary bus had seen one adult passenger get off, he would have been reluctant to find that she should have to reduce her speed to a rater where she could have avoided a collision with a pedestrian who chose to stride out into the road without looking.  The experts agreed that it was likely that there was another vehicle a few hundred meters behind the bus which could be seen on the CCTV footage and therefore, the Defendant was not negligent to remain on dipped headlights rather than “full beam”.

The Claimant’s claim was therefore dismissed.

This is in contrast to another pedestrian claim in the case of FLR (A child by her mother and litigation friend MLR) v Dr Shanthi Chandran.

In this case a 12 year old girl, walked out in front of the Defendant’s car at a pedestrian crossing. The key facts were not in dispute. The Defendant was driving along a road road on her way to work and like the previous case she was very familiar with the area. The Defendant was travelling at 28mph which was within the 30mph speed limit. As the Defendant drove across a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing with the lights in her favour she hit the Claimant who had attempted to cross the road at the crossing despite the lights showing red.

The Claimant’s case was that the Defendant was driving too fast and had failed to keep sufficient observation of the road ahead and had failed to adapt to the weather conditions. The Defendant argued she was driving within the speed limit and the Claimant was only in the carriageway for 0.4 seconds meaning that even if she had seen her, the Defendant would not have had time to react.

The Judge found that the Defendant was in breach of duty in that she was driving too fast. The Judge held that 19-21mph would have been a reasonable speed for the road conditions.

Accident reconstruction experts had to establish if the Defendant was travelling slower there would have been a different outcome. They agreed that to stop before the accident location the Defendant would have to be driving slower than 17mph. Therefore, even at the “reasonable” speed of 20mph the accident would still have happened.

Other issues the Judge considered is that the Claimant momentarily stopped in the road before the impact and the Defendant swerved to the right, to avoid the collision. Addressing these points the Judge accepted the argument that the Claimant would, on the balance of probabilities, not have panicked and stopped in the road but would have kept moving having realised she had time to make it safely across the road had the Defendant been travelling slower. Further the Defendant would have braked rather than swerved.

Considering all the points the Judge was satisfied that if the Defendant been driving at 20mph circumstances would have been different, therefore establishing causation against the Defendant. Contributory negligence was assessed at 40% given that the Claimant had stepped into the road. Therefore  liability was apportioned 60/40 in the Claimant’s favour at the split liability trial.

Each case turns on its own facts. Whilst potentially similar they appear to be distinguishable from each other the age of the Claimant and on the findings that the speed in the latter case was too fast for the specific road conditions and the outcome would have been different if the Defendant had been travelling slower. Contact our insurance litigation team here for more information.