In 1995, Mr Punter started to cross a busy road junction whilst the traffic lights were still on amber.
Two cars had slowed down in preparation for stopping. However, as Mr Punter reached the central reservation, he was struck by a lorry. At the point of impact, the traffic lights had just turned to red.
© Highway Code
Mr Punter raised a Court action against the lorry driver and the company he worked for as he was driving within the course of employment. He sought to claim damages for his injury. The Judge agreed that the lorry driver had crossed over the stop line on a red light.
However, the Judge also found Mr Punter partly to blame for the incident by stepping out onto the road whilst the traffic lights were still on amber and not all approaching traffic stationary. Reference to the Highway Code was made where “pedestrians should watch carefully and not cross until the traffic lights are red and the traffic has stopped.”
PEDESTRIAN 25% TO BLAME LORRY DRIVER 75% TO BLAME
The pedestrian received only 75% of the value of his injuries as he had started to cross the road when the lights were only amber. This case is an important reminder to check that all traffic is stationary before beginning to cross a road. Failure to do so is not only a contravention of the Highway Code, it can also lead to serious injury.
Note – Rule 196 of the Highway Code allows pedestrians to cross on an amber light provided that all traffic is stationary.
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.