Derbyshire v Slaughter

Whether a driver should slow down or take precautionary action in a pedestrian accident depends on a fact-sensitive assessment of the whole situation. Compliance with the speed limit does not by itself determine whether the speed was reasonable. The presence of pedestrians does not automatically require specific precautions. An appellate court should not disturb the trial judge’s evaluation of the evidence unless the decision is clearly shown to be wrong.

The claimant, a pedestrian, appealed from the dismissal of her personal injury claim by Plymouth County Court. She had stepped into the road when the defendant’s vehicle was about 10 metres away. The defendant was travelling at approximately 30 miles an hour on a road subject to that limit. The appeal alleged that the defendant should have moderated her speed and been prepared to sound her horn or take avoiding action because the claimant’s partner and daughter had crossed the road and the claimant appeared likely to follow. The central issue was whether the recorder’s assessment of the defendant’s speed, lookout and duty to take further precautions was open to him.

Lord Justice Latham refused permission to appeal and ordered a detailed assessment of costs.

1. Contextual assessment of negligence. Whether a driver should have moderated speed or taken precautionary steps must be assessed in the circumstances as a whole. Relevant considerations include the traffic and pedestrian environment, what the driver observed, whether those observations indicated a risk requiring action, the speed of travel, the quality of the lookout, and the realistic opportunity to avoid the accident.
2. Speed and precautions. Driving at the speed limit does not automatically exclude negligence, since speed must be assessed against the circumstances. Conversely, pedestrians being present, or a pedestrian appearing to communicate with others across the road, does not automatically impose a duty to sound the horn, slow down or prepare an avoidance manoeuvre.
3. Appellate review. In this type of fact-sensitive case, the trial judge is required to assess the evidence and the Court of Appeal should not interfere unless the conclusion is clearly shown to be wrong. The recorder was entitled to find that the defendant was not driving excessively, was keeping a proper lookout, and was not alerted by the claimant’s conduct to take particular action. When the claimant stepped into the road at approximately 10 metres, there was no effective opportunity to avoid the collision.
4. The appellant’s submissions had substantial force, but there was no real prospect of persuading the Court of Appeal to interfere with the recorder’s assessment. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 901, Lord Justice Latham refused permission to appeal and ordered a detailed assessment of costs.
2. Plymouth County Court: On 20 March 2002, Mr Recorder Mousley dismissed the claimant’s personal injury action.