Whittle v Bennett

A driver who makes an unexpected U-turn on a busy road must take particular care to ensure that it can be completed safely. Gross negligence in making such a manoeuvre may exclude other driving deficiencies as operative causes of a collision where the accident would have occurred despite compliance with the speed limit and recommended following distance. Exceeding the speed limit is not necessarily negligent; negligence depends on the circumstances. A following-distance duty owed to the vehicle immediately ahead does not automatically extend to another road user involved in a subsequent collision.

The claimant, who was seriously injured and had become a patient, brought a claim arising from a collision between his Ford Mondeo and the defendant’s Vauxhall Nova. The claimant had been travelling slowly near the kerb before attempting a U-turn on the A25. The defendant was approaching from behind after travelling with another Nova and collided with the Mondeo while attempting to avoid it.

The trial concerned liability only. The court assessed the parties’ accounts, expert accident-reconstruction evidence, the claimant’s failure to observe the approaching vehicles, the defendant’s speed, and the distance he kept behind the vehicle ahead.

1. Liability. The claim failed. The claimant’s decision to make a U-turn in the circumstances was grossly negligent. The manoeuvre was wholly unexpected and extraordinary, and the approaching vehicles were in a position in which a driver could reasonably expect the claimant to be aware of them.
2. The use of a right-hand indicator did not make the manoeuvre reasonably foreseeable. A reasonable driver would have understood it as indicating that the Mondeo was re-entering the carriageway, rather than turning right or making a U-turn, because there was no road into which to turn and the Mondeo was in the wrong position for an ordinary right turn.
3. The defendant was travelling at about 60 mph when he realised that the Mondeo was turning, although the limit was 50 mph. Exceeding the limit was unlawful but was not, in itself, negligent. In the circumstances, the defendant had no reason to anticipate the U-turn and was not negligent in travelling at that speed.
4. The defendant was following the other Nova too closely. The recommended two-second distance under the Highway Code would have required a substantially greater gap. That duty was owed to the driver immediately ahead to avoid a collision if he stopped suddenly. It was not a duty owed to the claimant, and the breach did not cause this collision.
5. Even if the defendant had been travelling at 50 mph and had kept the recommended distance, he could not have stopped before reaching the Mondeo once the U-turn became apparent. The collision was caused by the claimant’s gross negligence, which excluded the defendant’s speed and following distance as operative causes. If that conclusion had been wrong, liability would have been apportioned 80 per cent to the claimant and 20 per cent to the defendant. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.