We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
This article considers three contrasting decisions
relating to road traffic accident claims.
Whilst, for obvious reasons, insurers and practitioners will
seek the comfort of established precedent in assessing claims,
inevitably many cases turn on their own facts. This is particularly
so in claims which arise following road traffic accidents. Three
recent decisions highlight the contrasting approach that can be
taken in road traffic accident claims.
In Ali v D'Brass (Court of Appeal, November 2011)
the claimant appealed against the dismissal of his claim for
personal injury. The claimant had been driving on a dual
carriageway at about 35-40mph when he braked negligently, when
there was no hazard. The defendant had been travelling about half a
car's length behind. The claim was initially dismissed on the
basis that the accident occurred because the claimant had braked
for no good reason. The Court of Appeal, however, considered that,
even though the claimant had braked for no good reason, the
defendant was at fault for driving too close to the rear of the
claimant's vehicle, and applied the well reported decision of
Stapley v Jypsom Mines Ltd (1953 House of Lords).
Liability was apportioned 40% to the claimant and 60% to the
defendant.
In Ringe v Eden Springs (High Court, 2012) the court
imposed 80% contributory negligence on a claimant motorcyclist who
had been hit by the defendant van driver emerging from a side
turning. The accident occurred when the claimant had just overtaken
an articulated lorry and the van driver's view of the claimant
had been obscured by the presence of the lorry. The motorcyclist
was estimated to have been travelling at 60-70mph before the
collision. The speed limit was 40mph. The defendant was criticised
for having pulled out in circumstances where the size of the
approaching articulated lorry was such that he could not see if
there was any vehicle overtaking the lorry but the claimant bore
considerable responsibility for his driving. Permission to appeal
has been granted to the defendant.
A similar factual scenario resulted in a very different outcome
in Woodham v JM Turner (Court of Appeal, 2 February 2012).
In that case, the court set aside the trial judge's original
finding on liability. The facts involved the driver of a coach who
was turning out of a T-junction. The coach pulled out to make a
right turn manoeuvre past a tractor which had left a gap. The
motorcyclist was filtering past the queue of traffic and,
inevitably, collided with the front offside corner of the emerging
coach. The trial judge found that the coach was at fault in moving
forward into the gap when she was not properly able to see whether
a road user was overtaking on the offside of the stationary
tractor. Unlike the motorcyclist in Ringe, the motorcycle
here was not travelling at a grossly excessive speed. The judge
found that the motorcylist was travelling at 20mph when a speed of
15mph or less would have given him a greater chance to take evasive
action. He considered, however, that the coach driver should bear
70% responsibility.
On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal took the view
that the accident would not have happened if the coach driver had
waited until she had a clear view to her right. Equally, however,
the accident would not have occurred if the motorcyclist had not,
contrary to the Highway Code, filtered up the off side of a queue
of traffic when this gave rise to a foreseeable risk of injury from
an emerging vehicle. As there was no reason to differentiate
between the two parties, the court considered a finding of 50/50
appropriate. This apportionment was made notwithstanding that the
facts were very similar to the well known case of Powell v
Moody (Court of Appeal, 1966) where the claimant motorcyclist
was held 80% liable.
Key points for defendants
Decisions in claims from motor accidents are often highly fact
sensitive. The courts often reach very different liability outcomes
on superficially similar claims
When considering precedent in motor cases, consider the basis
of culpability, rather than the broad facts
Where both parties are culpable, and there is no clear reason
to attribute more blame to one party than another, a 50/50 outcome
is likely
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The English Court of Appeal has considered for the first time in Ted Baker Plc v Axa Insurance UK Plc [2017] EWCA Civ that there are circumstances in which insurance companies will be under a duty to...
Insurers and reinsurers require clarity soon on whether passporting rights, or a workable equivalent, will remain in place in relation to cross-border policies after Brexit, or...
In a useful judgment for insurers, the Court of Appeal has again considered the issue of apportioning claims for compensation when there are multiple extrinsic causes...
The FCA has issued its long awaited consultation paper in relation to the extension of the senior managers and certification regimes to the wider financial services sector.
The FCA has at last rolled out its proposals on the extension of the senior manager regime to the wider financial services sector, which will include FCA regulated insurance intermediaries.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
