Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff claims damages for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident involving the Defendant's vehicle, a 24-seat coach driven by the Defendant's employee. The collision occurred at a junction where the Defendant’s coach was turning right from a minor road onto a major road, partially obscured by a stationary tractor and trailer. The Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle and collided with the coach as it emerged. Liability was tried as a preliminary issue, and this judgment addresses that issue.
The Plaintiff did not recall the accident and did not give evidence, but a witness riding behind him testified. The Defendant's driver and the tractor driver gave evidence. Police officers provided witness statements, photographs, and measurements. Both parties relied on expert reports in accident reconstruction and produced a joint expert statement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant breached its duty of care towards the Plaintiff by emerging from the minor road in a negligent manner.
- Whether the Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety and if such failure contributed to the collision.
- The appropriate apportionment of liability between the parties.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The Defendant argued that the driver acted appropriately by moving slowly forward to improve visibility before turning right, complying with official guidance for bus and coach drivers.
- Waiting for the tractor to move was impractical as traffic would then move forward and stop again at the lights, recreating the same problem.
- A right turn was safer and more realistic than alternative maneuvers such as a U-turn on a busy road.
- The Defendant contended it was unrealistic to expect the driver to hear the Plaintiff’s motorcycle due to noise from the tractor and other traffic.
- The Defendant relied on the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) Guide to Driving Buses and Coaches, which permits easing forward slowly to improve visibility at junctions.
- The Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff was at fault for overtaking stationary traffic at an unsafe speed and failing to exercise due care.
- The Defendant cited Farley v Buckley [2007] EWCA Civ 403 to argue the driver was not negligent since the motorcyclist’s reckless conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.
Court's Rejection of Defendant's Arguments
- The court rejected the submission that the driver had a licence to move forward blindly even slowly, as this posed a significant risk to overtaking motorcyclists.
- The court found that the driver’s position at the junction, angled rather than perpendicular, increased the risk of collision by restricting visibility.
- The court held that the driver should have waited for a more favourable opportunity to exit or approached the junction at a safer angle to reduce risk.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Farley v Buckley [2007] EWCA Civ 403 |
Negligence and foreseeability of reckless conduct by a motorcyclist. |
The court distinguished the case, noting that in Farley negligence was rejected because the motorcyclist’s reckless conduct was not reasonably foreseeable, whereas in the present case the risk was foreseeable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully analyzed the visibility constraints caused by the stationary tractor and the relative positions of the vehicles. It found that the Defendant's driver had severely restricted sightlines and that the first part of the coach visible to the Plaintiff would have been the front nearside corner. The court accepted evidence that the coach was moving slowly, estimating speeds around 3.5 miles per hour, and that the motorcycle was traveling approximately 20 miles per hour.
The court rejected the Defendant's reliance on official guidance permitting slow forward movement to improve visibility as it would effectively license drivers to advance blindly into the path of overtaking motorcyclists, creating a foreseeable risk of collision.
The court emphasized that the driver’s failure to approach the junction at a perpendicular angle significantly increased the risk by limiting visibility, and that the driver had safer alternatives, such as waiting for a better opportunity or adjusting approach angle.
Regarding the Plaintiff, the court found that he failed to exercise reasonable care by overtaking stationary traffic at a speed (about 20 mph) that substantially increased the risk of collision. The Plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the risk of vehicles emerging from the gap and did not reduce speed sufficiently to avoid collision.
The court noted that the Highway Code requires motorcyclists to exercise particular caution when filtering through slow or stationary traffic near junctions, which the Plaintiff failed to observe.
Balancing these factors, the court concluded that the Defendant bore the greater share of responsibility due to the duty to yield and the increased risk created by the manner of emerging, while the Plaintiff was also substantially responsible for failing to take adequate care.
Holding and Implications
The court held that the Defendant was in breach of its duty of care by emerging from the minor road in a negligent manner that created a foreseeable risk of collision, and that the Plaintiff also failed to take reasonable care for his own safety.
The court apportioned liability as follows: the Defendant is 70% liable for the collision and the Plaintiff is 30% liable for contributing to his own injuries.
The decision directly affects the parties by assigning fault and apportioning damages accordingly. The court did not establish any new precedent but applied established principles of negligence, foreseeability, and contributory negligence in the context of road traffic accidents.