Watson v Skuse

A driver of a large vehicle must exercise a high degree of vigilance, particularly where the vehicle has a blind spot. The duty extends to pedestrians who are foolish or inattentive, within reasonable limits, and is not confined to prudent road users. A failure to look to the side before moving off may therefore amount to negligence where the driver could have seen a pedestrian entering the road. Contributory negligence must reflect the parties’ relative culpability and causative potency. A pedestrian’s deliberate crossing against the pedestrian signal and movement into an obvious blind spot may justify a substantial reduction in damages, even though the driver remains liable.

The claimant suffered serious injuries after walking across a road beside a pelican crossing and into the path of the defendant’s articulated lorry. The claimant crossed against the pedestrian signal, close to stationary traffic and into an area where the lorry driver could not see him.

The Birmingham County Court held the defendant negligent but found the claimant 50 per cent contributorily negligent. The defendant appealed against liability and the apportionment. The claimant cross-appealed, seeking a lower deduction. The issues were whether the defendant had failed to keep an adequate lookout and how responsibility should be apportioned.

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed. Sedley LJ delivered the principal judgment, with which Arden LJ agreed.

1. Negligence. The Recorder was entitled to find that the defendant failed to keep an adequate lookout to his left while waiting for the lights to change. The driver’s duty was especially demanding because the lorry’s configuration created a substantial blind spot. It extended to pedestrians who might cross improperly or behave foolishly. The defendant could have seen the claimant before he entered the blind spot. The finding of negligence was therefore one reached on the evidence and applying the correct legal principles, and was not disturbed on appeal.
2. Contributory negligence. The claimant was the principal cause of the accident. He crossed when the red pedestrian signal was showing, failed to use the crossing properly, moved towards the lorry, and entered a position where it should have been obvious that the driver could not see him. The defendant’s failure to look left remained causative, but an equal division did not reflect the parties’ relative culpability and causative potency. The proper apportionment was 80 per cent to the claimant and 20 per cent to the defendant.
3. Orders. The apportionment was varied accordingly. There was no order for costs, and the costs order below was left undisturbed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1158, the defendant’s appeal succeeded to the extent that liability was reapportioned 80 per cent to the claimant and 20 per cent to the defendant. The claimant’s cross-appeal did not succeed.
2. Birmingham County Court: On 8 August 2000, Mr Recorder Challinor found the defendant negligent and apportioned liability equally between the parties.