Ferron v Metroline Travel Ltd

A pedestrian’s initial carelessness in entering a vehicle’s path does not necessarily cause later injury. Where the injury is directly caused by a subsequent negligent manoeuvre, the court may find that the initial carelessness merely set the scene and neither caused nor contributed to the injury. A bus driver who knows that two pedestrians have been struck, but cannot see one of them, must make reasonable checks before reversing. Reliance on another person’s instruction does not remove that duty. Even where the driver believes that a pedestrian is trapped and an emergency exists, it is negligent to move the vehicle without first locating the person, assessing the injuries and considering whether, and how, the manoeuvre can safely be carried out.

The claimant was crossing Oxford Street when the pedestrian lights were against her. After avoiding a taxi, she fell beneath or alongside a bus which had struck her. The bus driver knew that two women had been hit, but saw only one. Acting on the taxi driver’s instruction, he reversed without checking the claimant’s position and crushed her leg.

The Queen’s Bench Division, with His Honour Judge Bentley QC sitting as a High Court Judge, found that the claimant’s carelessness did not cause or contribute to the accident or injury. It found that the reversing manoeuvre was wholly responsible for the leg injuries and that the driver’s failure to check was negligent. The defendant sought permission to appeal, challenging the findings on negligence and causation.

Application refused. The court held that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. The judge was entitled to find that the claimant’s carelessness in crossing against the lights merely set the scene. On the accepted evidence, it did not cause the later accident or the injuries sustained when the bus was reversed over her leg. The judge was also entitled to find that the reversing manoeuvre was wholly responsible for those injuries.
2. A bus driver who has struck two pedestrians, but can see only one, must at least look out of the cab and check whether the other pedestrian is near the vehicle before reversing. In the circumstances found, it was open to the judge to hold that the driver could not safely rely on the taxi driver’s instruction.
3. Even assuming that the driver was responding to an emergency created by the claimant, the judge was entitled to find the manoeuvre negligent. Before moving the bus, the driver should have established the claimant’s exact position, considered the nature and extent of her injuries, assessed the risks, and decided whether and how the bus could safely be moved. His failure to do so was a direct cause of the injuries.
4. The challenges to the evidential basis of the judge’s findings were unarguable. The findings were supported by evidence which the judge was entitled to prefer. Both Schiemann LJ and Sedley LJ refused permission to appeal. There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Bentley QC, sitting as a High Court Judge in the Queen’s Bench Division, was refused. The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on negligence, causation and the evidential basis for the judgment.