North v TNT Express (UK) Ltd

Whether conduct in a difficult or potentially dangerous situation amounts to negligence must be assessed by asking whether the response was reasonable in all the circumstances. The inquiry does not require a pressing need or strict necessity for the precise action taken. Relevant circumstances include the claimant’s conduct in creating the dilemma, the surrounding risk of confrontation, and the manner and purpose of the defendant’s response. A driver may reasonably move slowly to a quieter place to resolve a dangerous obstruction, but violent or erratic driving intended to dislodge a person could breach the duty of care. A claimant’s deliberate act may remain causally relevant and may also bear on the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct.

The claimant, having been drinking outside a wine bar, climbed onto the front bumper of the defendant’s fully loaded lorry and held the driver’s-side windscreen wiper. The driver twice asked him to get down, then drove very slowly for about 100 metres towards a quieter location. The claimant pulled vigorously at the wiper, fell, and was struck by the lorry.

The deputy judge found the claimant 75 per cent responsible and the defendant 25 per cent responsible, holding that the driver had breached his duty of care. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was no breach and, alternatively, that the claimant’s conduct broke the chain of causation. The central issue was whether the driver had acted reasonably in all the circumstances.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Lady Justice Hale gave the first judgment. Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Schiemann agreed.

1. The applicable standard was the ordinary duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in all the circumstances. The deputy judge had applied too rigorous a standard by asking whether there was a pressing need or whether the exigencies required the lorry to be driven. The correct question was whether the driver’s actual response was reasonable in the difficult situation confronting him.
2. The court applied the approach stated by Sir John Donaldson MR in Marshall v Osmond [1983] 1 QB, namely that the duty owed by a driver remained the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in all the circumstances. Those circumstances included the claimant’s offensive and irresponsible conduct, the late hour, the presence of a group who had been drinking, and the potential for the situation to become violent.
3. Driving away very slowly to find a quieter place where the claimant could be persuaded to dismount was a reasonable reaction. Violent or erratic driving intended to dislodge him could have amounted to a breach.
4. The claimant’s deliberate and vigorous pulling at the windscreen wiper did not necessarily remove all causative effect from the driving, but it was relevant to the reasonableness of the driver’s conduct. Since there was no breach of duty, it was unnecessary to determine the alternative causation argument.

The finding of liability was set aside. The appeal was allowed with costs against the respondent, subject to detailed assessment. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed against the order below, with costs against the respondent.
2. Queen’s Bench Division: A deputy judge assessed responsibility for the claimant’s injuries at 75 per cent against the claimant and 25 per cent against the defendant, finding a breach of duty.