Ledger v Spurgeon

In road-traffic negligence, a vehicle parked partly on a carriageway is not, without more, a causative hazard. The court must assess objectively whether its position and any missing warning measures caused the collision. A technical breach of a safety code is only a factor and does not establish liability without causation. Where the vehicle is plainly visible from a substantial distance, the road user has time and room to avoid it, and existing warnings make no difference, the vehicle’s presence is not causative. A driver must take reasonable care to deal with dazzling sunlight or other conditions affecting safe driving. Subjective guilt, or lies about precautions, cannot replace the objective assessment.

The claimant was injured when his moped collided with the bucket of the defendant’s stationary JCB excavator, which was partly on the carriageway during nearby gas works. The claimant was travelling towards low winter sunlight and failed to see the excavator.

The Kingston-upon-Hull County Court found negligence by the defendant for failing to place warning cones, but attributed 80% responsibility to the claimant and awarded him £10,000 from agreed damages of £50,000. The defendant appealed. The central issues were whether the excavator was negligently positioned and whether the absence of cones was causative.

Lord Justice May gave the leading judgment. Lord Justices Ward and Potter agreed. The appeal was allowed.

1. The finding of causative negligence could not stand. The JCB was visible to approaching motorists from at least 150 metres. The claimant therefore had approximately ten seconds, even at the speed found by the judge, to see and avoid it and to take appropriate steps to deal with the sunlight.
2. The road contained several warnings relating to the works, including a road-narrows sign and a large directional arrow. The JCB probably also displayed a yellow warning light. In those circumstances, the claimant ought to have seen and avoided the excavator.
3. The absence of cones did not cause the accident. Since the claimant failed to see the plainly visible JCB, the court inferred that he would not have seen four or five cones placed in a taper over approximately 25 metres. Any technical breach of the relevant Code of Practice therefore did not establish causative negligence.
4. For the purposes of this claim, there was no material distinction between the JCB and an ordinary car parked partly on and partly off the road. The fact that the JCB was being used for gas works did not make its positioning negligent or causative.
5. The claimant’s duty to take care in conditions of dazzling sunlight was not displaced by the defendant’s conduct. The defendant’s alleged guilty conscience and lies about cones could not alter the conclusions reached from the objective facts.

The county court decision was reversed. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s appeal costs, and the appellant was awarded the costs below, subject to detailed assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On appeal in [2001] EWCA Civ 1527, the court allowed the defendant’s appeal and awarded him the costs below.
• Kingston-upon-Hull County Court — Judge Crabtree found the defendant 20% responsible and awarded the claimant £10,000 from agreed damages of £50,000.