The pursuer had been crossing a busy suburban road lined either side with shops when she was struck by the defender’s car.
The pursuer was 5 months pregnant at the time, and the accident caused her to suffer a miscarriage, as well as significant orthopaedic injuries, abdominal injuries and a brain injury.
The defender had a clear view of the pursuer as he approached her but maintained he did not see her.
It was accepted that had he kept a lookout and seen the pursuer when he should have done, he would have avoided a collision simply by taking his foot off the accelerator pedal.
It was therefore concluded that the primary liability lay with the defender, however that the pursuer’s contribution was 25%.
The defender appealed this decision. He claimed that the Judge had understated the extent of the pursuer’s responsibility, and that her considered but flawed decision to cross the road, was a marker of greater negligence than simply crossing the road without looking.
The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument. It restated the important principle that the destructive potential of a car, even one driven at a moderate speed, is relevant to the concept of blameworthiness and makes it rare for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver.
Although the pursuer was blameworthy to some extent, as she had demonstrated a disregard for her own safety, she had not taken a deliberate risk. Her actions had not put the motorist in danger or in an emergency situation. A link to the full decision can be found here.
Car driver – 75% responsible Pedestrian – 25% responsible
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.