Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Service

An emergency vehicle may pass through a red traffic signal only where it is safe to do so. The driver must treat the signal as imposing a give-way obligation. Flashing lights do not necessarily justify proceeding without audible warnings where there is no proper basis for assuming that other traffic has seen the vehicle. A driver proceeding on green has a fact-sensitive duty of care extending beyond avoiding vehicles actually seen or otherwise known to be crossing on red. That duty does not impose a universal obligation to look left or right at every green light. Contributory negligence may nevertheless arise where a properly observant driver ought to have noticed an approaching emergency vehicle.

The claimant was injured when his car, travelling from Pilland Way, entered a junction on a green light and collided with a fire appliance crossing Braunton Road against a red signal. The appliance displayed flashing lights, but its audible wailers were not activated. The Exeter County Court found the fire service negligent and rejected contributory negligence.

The fire service appealed on liability and contributory negligence. The issues were whether the recorder’s factual findings were open to him, whether the appliance was negligently driven without audible warnings, and whether the claimant should have looked to his right before proceeding.

1. Appeal allowed in part. May LJ, with Thorpe LJ and Bodey J agreeing, upheld the recorder’s factual findings. The claimant was entitled to proceed on the green signal, and the firefighters had no proper basis for assuming that he had seen the appliance and was waiting for it.
2. Under regulation 33(1) of the Traffic Signs And General Directions Order 1994, an emergency vehicle may disregard a red signal only where observance would hinder its emergency purpose and it does not proceed in a manner or at a time likely to endanger anyone or require other traffic to change speed or course. The appliance therefore had to treat the red signal as a give-way obligation. Proceeding at about 30 miles per hour when the driver was not sure that the claimant had seen it was negligent.
3. The failure to activate the audible wailers was also negligent. The officers had seen the claimant, knew that he was looking straight ahead, had time to activate the warnings and lacked a proper basis for assuming that the flashing lights had been noticed.
4. The duty of a driver proceeding on green extends beyond avoiding an emergency vehicle crossing on red which the driver happens to see or otherwise knows about. Its scope depends on the facts. There is no universal rule requiring a driver to look in both directions before proceeding on every green signal.
5. On the exceptional facts, including a clear dual carriageway, good visibility, no other traffic and an approaching fire appliance displaying several flashing lights, the claimant should have noticed the appliance. His failure amounted to want of due care and constituted contributory negligence, assessed at 20 per cent.
6. The claimant’s Part 36 offer carried through to the appeal. He was awarded the appeal costs on an indemnity basis, without interest on those costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): varied the Exeter County Court judgment by finding the claimant 20 per cent contributorily negligent. The findings of negligence against the fire service were upheld. The claimant received the appeal costs on an indemnity basis.
• Exeter County Court, before Mr Recorder Brock QC: liability found against Devon Fire and Rescue Service; contributory negligence rejected; damages ordered to be assessed.