Mr Snow began to cross the road near a road junction and not far from a pedestrian crossing which had a central refuge.
He threaded his way through the northbound traffic which was stationary then stood in the middle of the road just over the centre white line looking to his left for any approaching southbound traffic.
Whilst standing there, he was struck from his right by Giddin’s motorcycle which was travelling north overtaking the stationary vehicles.
On appeal, it was held that Mr Snow was not negligent in failing to use the crossing but was negligent in taking on himself the hazard of being marooned in the centre of the road at the mercy of oncoming traffic instead of crossing where there was a central refuge.
He was deemed to be 25% to blame.
A pedestrian who elected not to use a crossing took upon himself a higher standard of care.
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.