Sofola v Coles

Self-defence does not justify a battery unless the defendant reasonably believes that serious injury or an attack is imminent and uses force that is a reasonable response to the perceived danger. A genuine but mistaken belief must still have reasonable grounds. Even in an emergency, the response cannot be wholly unreasonable or excessive. Striking a person who remains seated in a vehicle through its open window can therefore amount to battery. An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee’s wrongdoing outside the limit of the employer’s responsibility.

Mr Sofola appealed from the dismissal by Lambeth County Court of his claims against London General Bus Company and its driver, Mr Coles. The dispute arose from a road-rage incident involving a bus and Mr Sofola’s vehicle. Mr Coles struck Mr Sofola through the open car window.

The central issues were whether the blow was justified in self-defence and whether the bus company was vicariously liable for Mr Coles’s conduct.

Appeal against Mr Coles. Ward LJ, with whom Jonathan Parker LJ agreed, held that the trial judge’s findings did not establish a lawful justification for the blow.

1. The judge had found that Mr Coles believed that something seriously unpleasant was about to happen, but had not identified what that threatened event was. Mr Sofola was seated in his car and was making no apparent personal threatening movement. On those findings, there were no proper legal grounds for treating Mr Coles’s belief as reasonable.
2. Even if a reasonable belief in imminent danger had been established, the force used still had to be reasonable and not excessive. The court would not weigh an emergency to a nicety, but striking a seated driver through the open window was wholly unreasonable and totally excessive. It amounted to a battery for which self-defence was unavailable.
3. The trial judge therefore erred in law by treating Mr Coles as completely exonerated, even on findings substantially favourable to him. The appeal was allowed against Mr Coles and judgment was substituted for Mr Sofola in the sum of £100. The court declined to interfere with that modest award, describing the matter as one of honour rather than compensation.

Claim against the bus company. The court refused permission to appeal. The company was not vicariously liable where Mr Coles’s conduct was outside the limit of its responsibility. The existing costs order in the company’s favour was not disturbed. The formal order provided for costs here and below assessed at £200 and 28 days for payment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Allowed the appeal against Mr Coles, substituted judgment for £100, and refused permission to appeal against London General Bus Company.
• Lambeth County Court. His Honour Judge Welchman dismissed Mr Sofola’s claims against the bus company and Mr Coles on 12 July 1999.