Turner v Arriva North East Ltd

A road user’s duty is one of reasonable care, not perfection. A driver with a clear lane and a green signal is not negligent merely because the vehicle is travelling near the applicable speed limit, where the evidence supports the conclusion that its speed was normal and safe in the circumstances.

A proper lookout requires attention to foreseeable hazards, but does not require a driver to watch every possible source of danger continuously. A driver is not at fault for failing to avoid a pedestrian who crosses against a red signal and becomes fully visible only at the last moment from behind intervening traffic.

The claimant, acting as personal representative of his deceased wife, brought a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act after she was struck by the defendant’s bus while crossing a busy urban road at a pelican crossing.

The deceased crossed against a red pedestrian signal and emerged into the bus lane from between traffic. The Recorder dismissed the claim, finding neither excessive speed nor an inadequate lookout by the bus driver.

The claimant appealed, contending that the driver travelled too fast and should have seen the deceased sooner from his elevated driving position. The issue was whether either allegation established negligence by the driver.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Tuckey held, with whom Lord Justice Laws and Sir Martin Nourse agreed, that the Recorder was entitled to find that the bus driver had not been negligent.

2. The finding that the bus was not travelling at an excessive speed could not be faulted. Although the Recorder found that the bus travelled at about 28 mph when the driver first saw the deceased and 24 mph on impact, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that its speed was normal and safe. The driver’s lane was clear and the traffic signal was green in his favour. The expert police officer made no criticism of speed. In those circumstances there was no good reason why the driver should not have proceeded at that speed.

3. The Recorder was also entitled to reject the allegation of inadequate lookout. The deceased and the claimant crossed against a red signal, between and around slow-moving or stationary traffic. On the accepted expert evidence, the deceased became fully visible only as she passed the front of vehicles in the centre lane. The driver also had to attend to the road ahead, traffic and pedestrians waiting at the central reservation.

4. Reasonable care did not demand that the driver observe every area continuously. It would have imposed a counsel of perfection to require him to see the deceased sooner. She was on the carriageway for only two or three seconds before the bus reached the crossing, and the collision was unavoidable once she entered its path.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2006] EWCA Civ 410, the court dismissed the claimant’s appeal unanimously.

• Middlesbrough County Court (Mr Recorder Bullock): Dismissed the claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, finding no negligence by the bus driver.