Mr Lightfoot was struck by a bus owned by the Go-Ahead Group PLC after stepping into an unlit carriageway and attempting to catch the driver’s attention.
CCTV footage revealed that, in the seconds leading up to the accident, the driver of the bus had taken his hands off the steering wheel and consulted his timetable, meaning that he did not see Mr Lightfoot until it was too late.
Mr Lightfoot was very drunk at the time of the collision and the bus company, while admitting primary liability, used this to argue that the claimant should be found 70% contributorily negligent.
It was acknowledged by the Judge that the mere fact of intoxication is not of itself enough to justify a finding of contributory negligence. However, on the facts of this case, Mr Lightfoot’s act of walking diagonally into the road in dark conditions amounted to an act of significant carelessness.
The Judge therefore concluded that the proper apportionment of responsibility was 60% to the defendant and 40% to Mr Lightfoot.
Although Mr Lightfoot had acted carelessly, the bus driver should have anticipated the prospect of pedestrians near the edge of the carriageway, given the fact that there was no footpath and there was a bus stop ahead. The driver’s decision to read a timetable at the wheel prevented him from keeping a proper lookout and could be compared to answering a mobile phone whilst driving.
Bus Driver (Go-Ahead Group PLC) – 60% Pedestrian – 40%
A link to the full decision can be found 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.