Houghton v Stannard

A claimant is not contributorily negligent merely because a vehicle breaks down and remains partly on a carriageway. The relevant question is whether the vehicle, in its position and circumstances, was a possible source of danger to road users whom the claimant could reasonably expect. A driver need not anticipate exceptionally bad driving or conduct which experience does not show to be common. Hazard warning lights, visibility, the vehicle’s position and the opportunity available to approaching drivers are relevant. Where a collision results from a driver’s failure to see an adequately warned stationary vehicle despite ample opportunity to avoid it, contributory negligence may not be established.

The claimant suffered serious injuries when the defendant’s van collided with his stationary Metro on the A13. Primary liability was admitted. The defendant alleged that the claimant was contributorily negligent because he continued driving despite possible mechanical problems, failed to move the vehicle further off the carriageway, and remained inside it after the breakdown.

The central issue was whether the Metro, positioned close to the edge of the carriageway with its hazard warning lights operating, constituted a dangerous obstruction, and whether any act or omission by the claimant materially contributed to the collision.

1. The court rejected all three allegations of contributory negligence. The claimant had not acted unreasonably in continuing on the road while hoping that the mechanical fault would resolve. The evidence did not establish that he voluntarily chose the precise stopping position or could reasonably have moved farther off the carriageway. Nor did it establish that he remained in the vehicle unreasonably or for longer than was necessary to assess the situation or attempt to restart it.

2. The Metro’s hazard warning lights were operating and were visible from at least 200 to 250 yards. The vehicle was positioned approximately one foot from the nearside edge. Other drivers saw it and avoided it. The defendant had first seen the Metro from a substantial distance while in the offside lane, but returned to the nearside lane and failed to observe either the stationary vehicle or its warning lights until approximately 50 yards away, when collision was inevitable.

3. Applying the approach in Rouse v Squires [1973] 2 AER 903 and Howells v Trefigin Oil and Trefigin Quarries Limited [1997] Court of Appeal, unreported, 2nd December 1997, reference 97/093/C, the question was whether the Metro was a possible source of danger to road users using the road in a way the claimant could reasonably expect. The claimant was not required to anticipate driving of such exceptional seriousness that experience did not show it to be common.

4. In the circumstances, the Metro did not present a dangerous obstruction. The defendant’s driving was exceptionally poor and outside the range of conduct the claimant could reasonably have contemplated. The defendant was therefore negligent, but the allegations of contributory negligence failed.