Cooper v Hatton

In an evidentially uncertain road collision, liability is not determined by a rule or rule of thumb that both drivers must share responsibility. The court must assess the evidence and draw the proper inference in the particular case. Where the evidence does not distinguish between the drivers, the proper inference may be that both were negligent and responsibility should be apportioned equally. A trial judge must not base a finding of sole responsibility on speculation. Evidence of a driver's good reputation is generally incapable of proving that the driver did not make an isolated careless mistake. Appellate courts should respect trial findings, but must intervene where the conclusion has no sufficient evidential basis.

The claimant brought a claim arising from a road collision in which neither driver remembered the impact and there were no eyewitnesses, skid marks or gouge marks. Owen J gave judgment for the claimant in the sum of £362,884 and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding the defendant wholly liable. The defendant appealed on liability, accepting causative negligence to the extent of 50 per cent and contending that the available evidence supported equal responsibility. The claimant relied on evidence concerning debris, the vehicles' final positions and his driving reputation. The central issues were whether the evidence justified a finding of sole liability and how Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd; Wallace v Richards (Leicester) Ltd, [1953] 1 WLR 1470, should be understood.

By a majority, the appeal was allowed. The order included the costs of the appeal and the counterclaim.

1. President Butler-Sloss and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker: the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for finding that the defendant alone caused the collision. Neither driver's unblemished driving record distinguished that driver as more likely to have made the relevant mistake. Evidence from the claimant's employer about his careful driving and reputation was therefore not a proper basis for concluding that he would not have cut the corner.
2. The trial judge's reasoning that one driver must have made a sudden, unplanned change of direction, while the other had no opportunity to avoid the collision, was speculative. It overlooked the possibility that one or both drivers had negligently failed to keep a proper lookout. Once the character evidence was excluded, the debris evidence and the vehicles' final positions were at most equivocal pointers. They did not establish sole responsibility.
3. On the available evidence, the proper inference was that both drivers were partly responsible. Since the evidence did not permit a fair apportionment between them, responsibility was equal. This applied the approach in Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd; Wallace v Richards (Leicester) Ltd, [1953] 1 WLR 1470, but those decisions were not rigid authority requiring equal blame in every collision.
4. Lord Justice Pill dissenting: the trial judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the impact occurred on the claimant's side of the road and that the defendant alone was negligent. Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd was concerned with inferences from evidence and did not enlarge the appellate court's power to reject findings of fact or inferences drawn by a trial judge who heard the evidence.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, with costs of the appeal and the counterclaim.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2001] EWCA Civ 623. Appeal allowed by a majority, with costs of the appeal and the counterclaim.
2. High Court: Owen J gave judgment for the claimant for £362,884 on 14 May 1999 and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on liability.