Lee v Williams

A driver emerging from an obscured junction must keep a proper lookout and anticipate that pedestrians may cross, even if they may take less care than they should. A cyclist using the pavement may still be contributorily negligent. Relevant factors include entering the carriageway further than necessary and the bicycle increasing vulnerability or restricting evasive action. Liability should reflect the parties’ respective responsibility.

The claimant was injured when the defendant’s car, emerging from an access road onto a dual carriageway, collided with his bicycle. The claimant had been cycling on the pavement and had moved into the mouth of the access road. The Recorder found the defendant solely liable, while rejecting the defendant’s contention that the claimant had crossed without stopping.

On appeal, the issue was whether the claimant was also at fault and, if so, how liability should be apportioned.

Sir Murray Stuart-Smith gave the first judgment, with Lord Justice Dyson agreeing. The appeal was allowed.

1. The defendant was at least partly to blame. He knew that people, particularly pedestrians, might cross the access road. He should have anticipated that they might not take as much care as they should and should have kept a sufficiently careful lookout before proceeding.
2. The Recorder was wrong to find the claimant free from blame. The claimant had entered further into the road than was necessary to establish whether it was safe to cross. That conduct was relevant to the collision.
3. The claimant’s use of a bicycle also materially increased his vulnerability. The front wheel projected beyond a standing pedestrian, and standing astride the bicycle restricted his ability to move himself or the bicycle out of the vehicle’s path. His cycling was not the primary cause, but it contributed to the injury and accident.
4. Because the defendant bore the greater responsibility, liability was apportioned 60 per cent to the defendant and 40 per cent to the claimant.

Damages were to be assessed. The claimant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal from the liability judgment of Mr Recorder Jackson in the Central London County Court. Liability was apportioned 60 per cent to the defendant and 40 per cent to the claimant.