Lamoon v Fry

A driver must adjust speed to the particular road conditions, even when travelling below the applicable speed limit. On a narrow country road with restricted visibility, the driver must anticipate pedestrians, cyclists and other road users who may be exposed to danger.

Excessive speed may cause a collision if a lower speed would probably have afforded sufficient time for avoidance, even though the driver could not have stopped within the visible distance. An appellate court will interfere with a trial judge’s apportionment of contributory negligence only exceptionally, including where the percentages fall wholly outside the range of legitimate possibilities or disclose an error of law.

A cyclist and a motorist collided on a narrow, unmarked country road at a shallow bend. The cyclist was cutting the corner on the wrong side of the road. The motorist was travelling at about 40 mph and had not slowed for the bend, despite vegetation restricting visibility.

Mr Recorder Patterson in Truro County Court found both parties at fault. He apportioned responsibility 60% to the cyclist and 40% to the motorist. The motorist appealed, contending that there was no proper basis for findings of negligence or causation and that, alternatively, his share of responsibility should not exceed 20%.

The central issues were whether the motorist’s speed was negligent, whether it caused the collision, and whether the apportionment could be disturbed on appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder had sufficient material to find that the motorist was negligent. Travelling at about 40 mph without slowing for the bend was too fast for this narrow country road, particularly because summer vegetation restricted the view. The fact that the road was subject to a 60 mph limit did not make that speed safe in the particular circumstances.
2. Lord Justice Rix held that a driver using such a road had to remain alert to other users who might be endangered by excessive speed. They could include cyclists, pedestrians and users who were not ideally positioned on the carriageway. Lord Justice Peter Gibson additionally relied upon paragraph 132 of the Highway Code, which advised extra care and reduced speed when approaching bends on country roads and preparation for vulnerable road users.
3. The Recorder was entitled to conclude that excessive speed caused the collision. At a lower speed, the motorist would have had more time to react and could probably have avoided the cyclist, even if he could not have stopped within the available sighting distance. Causation therefore did not depend upon proof that the motorist could have stopped completely before the point of impact.
4. The cyclist was plainly at fault for cutting the corner on the wrong side of the road. Nevertheless, the motorist’s proper position on his own side did not relieve him of the duty to drive at a speed suited to the conditions.
5. An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s apportionment of contributory negligence save in exceptional circumstances. Intervention requires an error of law or percentages falling wholly outside the range of legitimate possibilities. Although the 60:40 division was generous to the cyclist, it remained within the Recorder’s permissible evaluative judgment.

Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Peter Gibson agreed with Lord Justice Rix. Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed with costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal in [2004] EWCA Civ 591 was dismissed with costs. The Recorder’s findings on negligence, causation and the 60:40 apportionment remained undisturbed.
2. Truro County Court: Mr Recorder Patterson found the cyclist 60% responsible and the motorist 40% responsible for the collision. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.