Toropdar v D

Toropdar v. D

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a road traffic accident that occurred on Saturday, 22nd June 2002, on Cable Street, Hackney, at approximately 16:40. The Defendant, a 10-year-old boy, was playing with three other boys near the steps outside an Education Centre adjacent to a bus stop. The Plaintiff was driving a car along Cable Street, a residential inner-city street with a 30 mph speed limit (later reduced to 20 mph). The Plaintiff's view was obscured by parked vehicles and a bus at the bus stop. The Defendant ran diagonally across the street at speed, from a hidden position behind the bus, and was struck by the Plaintiff’s car, resulting in grievous injuries.

The Plaintiff sought a declaration of non-liability, which was declined, as the court found the Plaintiff negligent for driving too fast for the conditions and failing to engage in precautionary braking. The court then considered whether the Defendant was guilty of contributory negligence and, if so, how liability should be apportioned.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Defendant was guilty of contributory negligence in causing the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
If contributory negligence was established, what proportion of liability should be apportioned between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Honnor v. Lewis [2005] EWHC 747	Standard of care expected from a child is that of an ordinary child of the same age, intelligence, and experience; contributory negligence requires blameworthiness.	Used to assess the Defendant's contributory negligence by applying the standard appropriate to a 10-year-old child.
Gough v. Thorne [1966] 1 WLR 1387	Children are only found guilty of contributory negligence if blameworthy and capable of taking precautions for their own safety.	Supported the principle that the Defendant's age and capacity must be considered in assessing contributory negligence.
Mullins v. Richards [1988] 1 WLR 1304	Objective standard of care for children based on ordinariness, not subjective traits.	Reinforced the application of an objective standard appropriate to the Defendant's age.
Foskett v. Mistry [1984] RTR 1	High contributory negligence (75%) attributed to a 16-year-old boy running into traffic from a park.	Compared to the present case, indicating that older children running into open roads may bear greater responsibility.
Morales v. Eccleston [1991] RTR 151	75% contributory negligence assigned to an 11-year-old boy crossing during rush hour without running.	Used as comparative authority for assessing contributory negligence of children in traffic accidents.
Curry v. Ehrari [2007] EWCA 120 (Civ)	70% contributory negligence on a 13-year-old schoolgirl crossing from behind a vehicle.	Illustrated contributory negligence in cases where the pedestrian had some opportunity to observe traffic.
Armstrong v. Cottrell (1992)	One-third contributory negligence assigned to a 12-year-old plaintiff darting into traffic; driver negligent for late speed reduction.	Guided apportionment in the present case emphasizing driver’s higher blameworthiness.
Melleney v. Wainwright (1997)	One-third reduction for contributory negligence of an 11-year-old running into a major road; driver negligent for not slowing sufficiently.	Supported the court’s view on proportional apportionment in similar factual scenarios.
Lunt v. Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801	One-third contributory negligence for an adult plaintiff stepping into the road with a driver close by; high burden on drivers as potential danger.	Affirmed the principle that drivers bear a high standard of care and influenced the court’s apportionment decision.
Spiller v. Gordon Brown [1999] LTL 20 July	50% contributory negligence for a pedestrian walking out from behind a bus; driver negligent for distracted driving and speed.	Used for comparison to argue that the Defendant’s contributory negligence should be less given age and circumstances.
Grant v. Dick [2003] EWHC 441	60% liability on driver despite 14-year-old plaintiff’s contributory negligence; driver had fair warning and failed to act.	Supported argument that younger children’s contributory negligence should be assessed lower.
Eagle v. Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107	40% contributory negligence on a 17-year-old pedestrian who ignored warnings; driver also negligent.	Illustrated the balancing of blameworthiness and the high standard imposed on drivers.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by summarising the facts and reaffirmed its earlier finding that the Plaintiff was negligent for driving too fast for the conditions and failing to engage in precautionary braking. The accident occurred in a residential area known to have children present, and the Plaintiff's view was obscured by parked vehicles and a bus. The Defendant, a 10-year-old child, ran suddenly across the road from a hidden position without stopping or looking, giving the Plaintiff no realistic opportunity to avoid the collision.

In assessing contributory negligence, the court applied established legal principles requiring that the Defendant's actions be judged by the standard expected of a child of the same age, intelligence, and experience. The court noted that while the Defendant was blameworthy for running heedlessly into the road contrary to pedestrian safety codes, his youth lessened his culpability compared to an adult or older child.

The court reviewed a range of precedents involving children and pedestrians in road traffic accidents, noting varying apportionments of liability depending on factors such as the child's age, the driver's speed, the visibility of the child, and the opportunity the driver had to avoid the accident. It distinguished the present case from those where the driver had a clear view of the pedestrian and failed to take action, emphasizing that the Plaintiff here had only about one second to observe the children due to obstructions and the Defendant's sudden movement.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that although the Defendant's contributory negligence was significant and directly causative, the greater share of responsibility lay with the Plaintiff for driving too fast and failing to take proper precautions in an area where children were likely to be present. The court determined that a one-third reduction in damages to account for the Defendant's contributory negligence was just and equitable.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Defendant was guilty of contributory negligence and apportioned liability accordingly. The Plaintiff's negligence was the major cause of the accident, but the Defendant's actions contributed substantially.

Liability was apportioned with a one-third reduction in damages to reflect the Defendant's contributory negligence.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff remains primarily liable for the injuries sustained by the Defendant, but the damages recoverable will be reduced by one-third due to the Defendant's contributory negligence. The court did not establish any new precedent but applied established principles to the facts of this case.

Click here to read the full judgment

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.