Irwin v Stevenson

Negligence in a road traffic accident must be assessed by considering the driver's whole manoeuvre, including the time and opportunity to respond to danger. A driver who has signalled a right turn, slowed, checked following traffic and made the vehicle's intentions clear is not required to anticipate a vehicle suddenly emerging from behind another following vehicle to overtake both. Nor must the driver maintain a continuous rearward lookout while concentrating on the turn and the road ahead. A failure to see a motorcycle visible for no more than about one and a half seconds did not establish breach where there was no realistic opportunity to avoid the collision. The sudden double overtaking manoeuvre was the overwhelming, and ultimately sole, cause of the accident.

The appellant, a tractor driver, appealed from a County Court judgment following a trial on liability arising from a road traffic accident. The claimant's motorcycle collided with the tractor as the tractor slowed and turned right across the opposing carriageway into a field entrance. The tractor had signalled, and a Transit van behind it had also slowed.

The trial judge held both parties responsible and found the claimant 50% contributorily negligent. The appellant accepted the primary factual findings but challenged the conclusion that he had been negligent in failing to see the motorcycle before or during the turn. The central issue was whether reasonable care required him to anticipate and guard against the motorcycle's sudden double overtaking manoeuvre.

The appeal was allowed with costs here and below, subject to detailed assessment. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not negligent.

1. Potter LJ. The trial judge had imposed an unrealistic standard by focusing on the brief period during which the motorcycle was visible. The defendant had signalled his intention to turn, slowed down, checked the following traffic and was driving a tractor displaying a prominent orange flashing light. The following Transit van was also slowing to allow the turn. In those circumstances, the defendant had no reason to anticipate a vehicle emerging suddenly from behind the van to overtake both vehicles.
2. The assessment had to take account of the whole manoeuvre. It was unreasonable to require the defendant to maintain a continuous watch to the rear while concentrating on the turning manoeuvre and the road ahead. The motorcycle was visible for no more than about one and a half seconds, and part of that period occurred after the tractor had begun the turn. There was no realistic time in which the defendant could have observed the motorcycle, reacted and avoided the collision.
3. Sir Anthony Evans. The defendant had already checked the vehicles behind and had no reason to expect a motorcycle or other vehicle to overtake both the Transit van and the tractor, or to disregard the tractor's indicator. Even if attention were confined to the period after the motorcycle emerged, the claimant had a longer opportunity to appreciate that the tractor had slowed because it was turning right. The claimant's failure to observe that warning was the sole cause of the accident.
4. As the defendant was not negligent, the court did not need to determine the arguments on contributory negligence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 359, the appeal was allowed. The defendant was held not negligent, with costs here and below and detailed assessment.
• County Court: His Honour Judge Roach, following the liability trial on 3 October 2001, held the defendant liable and assessed the claimant as 50% contributorily negligent.