Dymond v Pearce

Parking a large vehicle on a highway for a substantial period, for the driver's convenience and without any special right or justification, may constitute a public nuisance by obstructing the public's right of passage. Negligence is not an essential ingredient of such a nuisance.

Liability in damages does not follow from the existence of the nuisance alone. The claimant must prove that the obstruction caused the injury. The mere fact that no collision would have occurred without the vehicle's presence is insufficient. Where the collision was caused solely by another road user's failure to look ahead, the creator of the obstruction is not liable.

The plaintiff was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle which struck the rear of a large, illuminated lorry parked overnight on a dual carriageway. The motorcycle driver had looked towards a group on the pavement instead of watching the road. The plaintiff obtained judgment in default against that driver and claimed damages from the lorry's owner and driver in negligence and public nuisance.

Bridge J, whose decision was reported at [1971] RTR 472, dismissed both claims. He held that the lorry had not been negligently parked, did not constitute a nuisance and, in any event, did not cause the accident. The plaintiff appealed. The central issues were whether prolonged parking without justification amounted to an obstruction constituting public nuisance and whether that nuisance caused the plaintiff's injuries.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the claims against the lorry's owner and driver.

2. Per Sachs LJ, the trial judge correctly rejected negligence. The lorry was properly illuminated beneath a street lamp, was visible for at least 200 yards and left ample carriageway for passing traffic. Edmund Davies and Stephenson LJJ agreed that the parking circumstances disclosed no want of reasonable care.

3. Per Sachs LJ, prolonged parking of the large lorry for the driver's convenience was nevertheless an unauthorised obstruction and therefore a public nuisance. An ordinary highway user's rights are confined to passage, repassage and incidental uses such as temporary halts and emergency stops. Leaving a large vehicle on a highway for another purpose and for a considerable period prima facie removes part of the highway from public use. The driver's convenience supplied no justification. Edmund Davies and Stephenson LJJ agreed that the lengthy parking constituted an obstruction amounting, at least prima facie, to nuisance.

4. The existence of a nuisance did not create liability for every collision with the obstruction. All three Lord Justices rejected the submission that ordinary principles of causation ceased to apply. A claimant must establish that the obstruction played some part in producing the collision. It is insufficient merely to show that the collision could not have occurred at that location had the obstructing vehicle been absent.

5. The trial judge was entitled to find that the sole cause of the accident was the motorcycle driver's failure to look where he was going. The stationary lorry was visible and did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. That finding was independently fatal to the nuisance claim.

6. The court did not determine whether an initially danger-free obstruction could found liability in nuisance without negligence after an unforeseen change, such as fog or lighting failure, made it dangerous. Sachs LJ was inclined to recognise possible liability. Edmund Davies LJ considered danger, assessed by reasonable foreseeability of injury, essential to a personal-injury claim of this kind. Stephenson LJ also left the question open.

1. Court of Appeal: The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed unanimously. The finding that the lorry constituted an unauthorised obstruction and public nuisance did not disturb the judgment because the nuisance had not caused the accident.
2. Exeter Assizes: Bridge J dismissed the claims in negligence and nuisance against the lorry's owner and driver: [1971] RTR 472.