Case Overview: Toropdar v D
In June 2002, a 10-year-old was playing with three of his friends near to an education centre on Cable Street in Hackney.
A driver was travelling West on Cable Street within the 30-mph speed limit. There were several cars and a bus parked on his nearside as he approached the education centre.
Suddenly, the 10-year-old boy ran across the road from in front of the bus. His friends shouted a warning, but he was hit by the car and thrown onto the bonnet sustaining very serious injury.
A claim was raised against the driver for driving too fast for the conditions and failing to brake promptly.
The judge found the driver liable to pay damages.
Although the driver was travelling within the speed limit, that was still was too fast for the conditions and the driver failed to apply precautionary braking.
The Court’s decision on liability apportionment
However, the Judge found the 10-year-old 1/3rd to blame with the driver 2/3rds to blame.
In his finding, the Judge noted the boy had failed to follow the green cross code, but a 10-year-old could not be expected to have the same ingrained approach to road safety and self-preservation as an adult or a teenager.
The Judge commented that a substantial degree of blame did rest with the boy but had to be reduced to account for his youth.
Driver 2/3 to blame : Pedestrian 1/3 to blame.
FAQ
Q1: Can a driver be liable if they were within the speed limit?
Yes. Courts assess whether the driver was travelling at a safe speed for the conditions, not just the legal limit.
Q2: Can a child be held responsible for a road accident?
Yes, but their responsibility is reduced due to age and lack of judgment compared to adults.
Q3: What is contributory negligence in child accident claims?
It means the injured child may share some blame, reducing compensation, but courts adjust this based on age.
Q4: What duty do drivers owe near schools or children?
Drivers must take extra care, anticipate sudden movements, and be ready to brake.
If your child has been injured in a road traffic accident, RTA LAW can help you secure the compensation you deserve.
Related Articles
MW v Wilkinson – Driver not liable in child pedestrian accident
A tragic road traffic accident involving a 5-year-old boy resulted in serious injuries, but the court found the driver was not liable. This case highlights when drivers may – and
Atkinson v Kennedy – Driver not liable in child pedestrian case
Atkinson v Kennedy demonstrates that even in serious child pedestrian accidents, liability is not automatic. The Court held the collision was unavoidable despite the driver exceeding the speed limit.
Gadsby v Hayes | Child pedestrian toucan crossing case
A High Court case examining whether a driver should reduce speed to 10 mph at a toucan crossing. Despite serious injuries to a child pedestrian, the court found no negligence.
Is it worth 5 minutes of your time?
A quick phone call allows us to ask you a few questions about what happened to you and determine whether we can help.
This form collects your name and phone number so that we can contact you. Check out our Privacy Policy for more detail on how we store, process and protect your submitted data. If you choose not to consent, please use an alternative contact method shown on our Contact page.