Stotardt v Selkent Bus Co & Anor

A defendant relying on inevitable accident must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident occurred without negligence. Where the defence depends on a sudden medical event affecting a driver, the defendant must prove that the event rendered the driver temporarily incapable of controlling the vehicle and caused the accident. A possibility of illness, unsupported by sufficiently persuasive evidence, does not discharge that burden. The court must assess the medical evidence alongside the eyewitness and reconstruction evidence. If the driver had already negligently created the collision risk before any medical event could have occurred, the defence fails.

The claimant was seriously injured when a bus owned by the first defendant crossed into the opposing carriageway, collided with a car driven by the second defendant, and crashed into a shop. The claimant brought claims against both defendants. The second defendant also faced a Part 20 claim.

The principal factual issues were whether the second defendant had performed a U-turn into the bus’s path and whether the bus driver’s conduct resulted from an unforeseen medical event. The court tried liability only and considered eyewitness, expert reconstruction and medical evidence.

1. Liability of the second defendant. The evidence did not establish that the second defendant had performed a U-turn. The eyewitness evidence relied upon by the defendants was materially inconsistent with the physical evidence and was unreliable. The second defendant and his supporting witnesses gave compelling evidence that he had been travelling lawfully southwards and had not performed a U-turn. The claimant’s claim against him and the Part 20 claim therefore failed.
2. Inevitable accident. The burden lay on the first defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the collision was caused by a medical event which rendered the bus driver temporarily incapable of driving. The court assessed that issue by reference to the whole evidential picture, including the driver’s conduct before the collision, eyewitness observations, the timing of events and the competing medical opinions.
3. The medical evidence did not establish a seizure, syncope or other medical event on the balance of probabilities. The preferred medical opinions regarded such an event as possible but very unlikely. The evidence also indicated that the driver had driven onto the wrong side of the road before any neurological or cardiac problem could have intervened. His failure to brake or steer was credibly explained by panic, freezing or being jolted after the collision.
4. The defence of inevitable accident failed. The bus driver had negligently driven onto the wrong side of the road, collided with the second defendant’s properly positioned car and continued into the shop. There was judgment for the claimant against the first defendant, judgment for the second defendant in the Part 20 proceedings, and judgment against the claimant on her claim against the second defendant.