The proceedings in this case were raised by the widow of a pedestrian, Mr Dursan, who suffered fatal injuries after being struck by a lorry whilst attempting to cross a two-lane road between lines of queuing traffic.
It was agreed by all parties that once Mr Dursan had begun to cross the road, the lorry driver would only have been able to see him through his nearside mirrors.
The claimant’s argument was that the lorry driver should have made a second and final check of these mirrors before moving forward. This line of argument was unsuccessful.
The judge accepted the driver’s evidence that he had checked all of his mirrors before moving the lorry, and that these checks revealed nothing to alert him to the possible presence of pedestrians in front. Further, while the circumstances of the evening in question (dark, rainy conditions; stopping and starting traffic) demanded a significant degree of vigilance from the driver, the fact that he had failed to check his nearside mirror for a second time did not make him responsible for the accident.
Thus – Mr Dursan’s widow failed to establish any lack of reasonable care on the part of the lorry driver. Responsibility for the accident lay with the victim as he had failed to take appropriate precautions for his own safety on a dark and rainy evening, which could have included, for example, wearing lighter coloured clothing or using the pedestrian crossing.
The full decision can be viewed here.
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.